The conceptual development of Sweden’s integration policy is a remarkable
journey in itself: from the influx of foreign labour in the 1950s
and 1960s, via refugees and their reception in the 1970s, immigrants
and introduction programmes of the 1980s and 1990s, to diversity and
integration in the 21st century. This conceptual development reflects
many different aspects – and this article discusses some of them. The
main questions addressed are: To what extent is integration policy
driven by central state directives or by municipal’s experiences, capacity
and ability? Is integration work the sole concern of local government
authorities and public agencies, or are other societal actors involved?
What kind of ideas, strategies and courses of action have affected and
influenced integration policy? How does management at the local level
react to an increased immigration and its effects in the formation of
the municipality’s integration work?
With a focus on the development in Malmö, this article describes the
management’s ideas, strategies and the municipality’s courses of action
with regard to integration. Management is seen as a result of economic
and demographic changes, the discovery of ethnic diversity and its
effects in the city, legislation concerning the multicultural society and
national integration policy, discrimination and diversity perspectives
and the system’s inherent prerequisites with regard to work, roles and
competence. Management is not regarded as something individual –
which is the most common way of studying it – but as a collective and
political phenomenon. Management is distinguished by the measures,
policies, decisions and course of events that can be discerned over
time and where the underlying ideas and assumptions of reality can be
interpreted.
Some development characteristics are very evident. Firstly, that
a united political front of the dominant parties against popular and
xenophobic political currents was established as a defence of the multicultural
society; a front that recognised and accepted migration to
Sweden from a humanitarian point of view and as a dynamic factor in
societal development. Despite well-informed warnings of the weaknesses
of “social engineering solutions” to “the immigrant problem” the
political leadership has nevertheless relied on such special solutions for immigrants and on traditional welfare policies combined with the development of a comprehensive administrative field for the reception
of refugees/immigrants nationally and locally in the municipalities. The
united political front of the established parties allowed the administrative
powers to create specialised reception and integration systems
without any critical analysis of the resources provided for integration.
For politicians it was a question of breaking down the opposition to a
multicultural society among citizens and preventing xenophobic forces
from gaining political power. It would seem, however, that the impact
of xenophobic political parties – parties that are not in accord with
multicultural ideology – has not been curbed. In the 2006 elections
the Sweden Democrats won a considerable number of seats on local
councils, particularly in Skåne, which means that xenophobic forces
are once again to be found on the political playing field.
Secondly, a long line of projects were initiated at the end of the 1990s
and beginning of the 21st century in order to influence the organisation,
its members and improve integration in society. These were
mainly concerned with educational efforts and project work designed
to change and improve the organisation’s way of working with diversity
and included themes like “Staff Training in Discrimination Issues”,
“Diversity as a Personnel Concept” and management training initiatives
like “Commitment for Malmö”. Initiatives to affect the situation
in “densely populated immigrant areas and exposed districts” were
also included in collaborations with the state, such as the co-called
“Blommanpengarna” (Development grants), “Nationellt exempel”
(National examples) and “Storstadssatsningen” (Metropolitan
investment). In spite of all this alarming reports about the situation for
immigrants in Malmö increased and the situation still doesn’t seem to
have improved as far as immigrants are concerned.
Thirdly, the diversity ideology “bites” slowly in the organisation,
despite considerable efforts to establish it within the municipal organisation.
While diversity ideology certainly leads to a number of discussions
at management level, it seems to stop there. In other words,
such efforts don’t lead to many integrating actions of a diversity nature
“on the shop floor”, in the shape of utility-oriented assessments of
diversity in the recruiting of co-workers and managers, or a diversity
content relating to an inclusion of “all differences”, or a pointing out
of the qualitative aspects in the encounter between internal differences
and external relations. Discrimination ideology does gain ground,
however. Action plan objectives for a certain quantitative representation
of foreign born people are agreed on in the organisation. At the
beginning of the 21st century such an approximate representation was reached in the organisation as a whole, and is a goal that carries great weight. Even though such a representation exists, it doesn’t reach as
far as the category of management or to the political mandate, where
representation is considerably weaker. In itself this quantitative ethnic
representation allows for spontaneous encounters and the development
of a diversity idea, although this doesn’t happen in the permeating and
utility-directed way aimed at in diversity ideology.
In spite of the double undertaking of welfare and growth in the
recently (2004) launched programme for integration (entitled Welfare
for All), which indicates a change in integration policy in Malmö
from “local government to local governance”, the long-term goals
still tend to be classic general socio-political welfare goals, namely,
that every able-bodied person should have a job, every student should
have complete grades, everybody should be offered housing, and the
crime rate should be zero. The immigrant issue only appears as a
background formulation (multicultural resource) and as a restriction
(abolishing segregation in the city) in the success of the programme;
something that is explained in terms of the municipality shouldering
an integration burden that is actually the state’s responsibility. A clear
social engineering perspective also characterises the programme and is
strengthened by an expectation that collaboration must take place if
the problems are to be solved. While such collaboration is expressed
as other public agencies on the one hand and industry and voluntary
organisations on the other, no explicit reference is made to immigrants
and immigrant groups. A number of reports show that such collaborations
are not always successful. Those experiencing least success are,
not surprisingly, immigrant entrepreneurs, immigrant associations and
immigrant citizens, whereas collaborations prove more successful in
terms of the public sector agencies such as the police, the employment
agency and the social insurance office.