A ROADMAP TO IMPROVE INTEGRATION POLICIES ANDOUTCOMES FOR EGYPTIAN IMMIGRANTSRESEARCH PAPER 5

Exploring the
Global Links between
Indicators ofIntegration Policies
and Outcomes
A roadmap to improve integration
policies and outcomes for Egyptian
immigrants
Prepared byThomas Huddleston

October 2020

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

TRENDS ON INTEGRATION POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
1.1

Link between overall integration policies and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

1.2

Overall integration policies facing Egyptian immigrants around the world . . . . .12

LABOUR MARKET MOBILITY POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
2.1

Link between labour market policies and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

2.2

Link between labour market policies and other integration outcomes . . . . . . . .16

2.3

Labour market policies facing Egyptian immigrants around the world . . . . . . . .16

FAMILY REUNIFICATION POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
3.1

Link between family reuniﬁcation policies and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

3.2

Link between family reuniﬁcation policies and other integration outcomes . . .20

3.3

Family reuniﬁcation policies facing Egyptian immigrants around the world . . . .21

MIGRANT EDUCATION POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
4.1

Link between migrant education policies and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

4.2

Link between migrant education policies and other integration outcomes . . . .24

4.3

Migrant education policies facing Egyptian immigrants around the world . . . .25

MIGRANT HEALTH POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
5.1

Link between migrant health policies and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

5.2

Migrant health policies facing Egyptian immigrants around the world . . . . . . . .28

PERMANENT RESIDENCE POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
6.1

Link between permanent residence policies and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

6.2

Link between permanent residence policies and other integration outcomes . . . .31

6.3

Permanent residence policies facing Egyptian immigrants around the world . . . .31

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
7.1

Link between political participation policies and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

7.2

Link between political participation policies and other integration outcomes . . .35

7.3

Political participation policies facing Egyptian immigrants around the world . . . .35

1

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

8.

NATURALISATION POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
8.1

Link between naturalisation policies and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

8.2

Link between naturalisation policies and other integration outcomes . . . . . . . .39

8.3

Naturalisation policies facing Egyptian immigrants around the world . . . . . . . . .41
8.3.1 Dual nationality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
8.3.2 Residence requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
8.3.3 Birthright citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

9.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
9.1

Link between anti-discrimination policies and outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

9.2

Link between anti-discrimination policies and other integration outcomes . . .49

9.3

Anti-discrimination policies facing Egyptian immigrants around the world . . .50

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
LIST OF KEY INTERNATIONAL REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
AUTHOR DETAILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

2

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Executive Summary
METHODOLOGYThis research report reviews the existing integration policies worldwide and their potential
impacts on harnessing the potential for all migrants to contribute their skills to the labour
market and daily life of their destination country. The key deliverable of this report is the
production of an overview of the data linking integration policies to the outcomes andbeneﬁciaries that each policy aims to address.
Given the broad geographical and thematic scope of the links between policies andoutcomes, the most appropriate methodology for this report is secondary meta-datacollection and analysis of the trends and effectiveness of integration policies. The author hadaccess to the latest labour migration and integration policy indicators for all destination
countries covered by comparable indexes. To provide this overview of data linking integration
policies to outcomes, the author conducted a full interdisciplinary literature review of all
multivariate or multilevel analyses over the past decade that studied these links. These studies
mostly measure integration policies by using the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX),
which are the most comprehensive, reliable and widely cited indicators of integration policies.
These studies measure outcomes in terms of labour migration and labour market
participation, participation in most other areas of life as well as public attitudes. A speciﬁcanalysis of integration indicators for immigrants from Egypt is not possible, due to the data
limitations and sample sizes of the available international datasets. However, the report wasable to identify any ﬁndings speciﬁcally related to outcomes for immigrants from the MENA
region or Muslim family backgrounds. In the end, this global literature review identiﬁed 128
robust studies that analysed 414 links between a wide variety of integration policies andoutcomes. The report is structured in separate sections for each area of policy covered by thecomprehensive MIPEX index and by the corresponding studies linking policies and outcomes.
The report’s ﬁndings on the links between integration policies and outcomes are generally
applicable to developed democracies, as international multivariate studies are limited in
geographical scope to Europe (mostly Western Europe) and, occasionally, OECD countries.
The report’s conclusions highlight the main results on the links between integration policies
and outcomes. This review gives indications of the potential effectiveness and gaps for
integration policies facing Egyptian immigrants around the world. Based on these ﬁndings,
the report’s conclusions propose recommendations for Egyptian policymakers andstakeholders to promote the interests of Egyptian immigrants in their main destination
countries.

3

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

NATIONAL APPROACHES TO INTEGRATION
Overall, a country’s approach to integration policy is strongly related to public and immigrants’attitudes and identities as well as to immigrants’ well-being, political participation and several
other outcomes. Looking at the major destination countries for Egyptian immigrants,
integration policies overall are fully inclusive and developed in only a few countries, such as
Australia and Canada. Integration policies overall are only slightly inclusive, with a few areasof weakness, in countries like France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK. Policies
are restricted and under-developed in countries like Kuwait, Israel, Oman, Saudi Arabia,
Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

LABOUR MARKET PARTICIPATION
Despite the limited and mixed results from the previously mentioned studies, a combinationof various targeted policies may improve immigrants’ investment in their skills, employment
quality and long-term labour market mobility in the destination country. Labour market
mobility policies also seem positively related to public perceptions of competition andeconomic threat.
Among the top destinations for Egyptian immigrants included in MIPEX, labour market
mobility policies are the most developed in Austria, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands
and the US. These policies are slightly less strong in Australia, France, Greece and the UK.
They were the least developed in Cyprus and Turkey. Labour immigration programmes in the
Gulf countries and Southeast Asia place signiﬁcantly more family restrictions thanprogrammes in Latin America, Europe and North America. Restrictions are greatest for low
and medium-skilled ‘temporary’ worker programmes. MIPEX 2015 observed that labour
market mobility policies are usually the best developed area of a country’s integration
policies. These policies are also one of the few areas of integration policy where international
reform trends are consistently strong and positive.

FAMILY REUNIFICATION
Family reuniﬁcation policies may be important to secure the family life, settlement and wellbeing of the limited number of Egyptian immigrants who live separated from their spouse,children and other direct dependents. Looking at the major destination countries for Egyptian
immigrants, the right to family reuniﬁcation is relatively secure in countries like Australia,
Canada, Italy and the US, more insecure in countries like Austria, Cyprus, France, Turkey andthe UK and highly restricted in countries like Kuwait, Israel, Oman, Saudi Arabia and theUnited Arab Emirates.

4Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

MIGRANT EDUCATION
Inclusive education and integration policies can facilitate a stronger sense of belonging andmore equitable academic progress for youth of various ethnic backgrounds. Looking at major
destination countries for Egyptian immigrants, migrant education policies are well developedin countries like Australia, Canada and the UK, partially developed in countries like France,
Germany, Italy and the Netherlands and under-developed in countries like Kuwait and Turkey.
Education is identiﬁed by MIPEX 2015 as one of the greatest weaknesses in the integration
policies of most countries, as education systems are very slow to adapt their policies to thespeciﬁc needs of immigrant pupils.

MIGRANT HEALTH
Inclusive migrant health and integration policies are fundamental to secure basic healthprotections and inclusion for immigrants regardless of legal status. Integration policies seem
related to various subjective and objective measures of health: self-reported health, thedeleterious health effects of discrimination, chronic and longstanding illness including
diabetes, elderly migrants’ frailty and mortality rates. Among the top destinations for
Egyptian immigrants included in MIPEX, migrant health policies are the most developed inAustralia, Austria, Italy, the UK and the US. Policies were the least developed in Cyprus,
Greece and Turkey. Generally, migrant health policies are most developed in countries withinclusive integration policies overall and least developed in countries with restrictive policies.

PERMANENT RESIDENCE
Permanent residence policies may inﬂuence immigrants’ settlement and mobility decisions
as well as their security of residence and employment. Looking at the major destination
countries for Egyptian immigrants, permanent residence rights are relatively secure incountries like Canada, Germany and Italy. These policies are more insecure in countries like
Australia, France, the UK and the US. They are highly insecure in countries like Cyprus, Turkey,
Israel and Kuwait. Looking to indexes with a broader geographic scope, labour immigration
programmes in the Gulf countries and Southeast Asia place signiﬁcantly more restrictions on
the long-term rights of migrant workers than programmes in Latin America, Europe andNorth America. The greatest restrictions emerge in terms of residence rights (access topermanent residence or citizenship) and in terms of social rights, especially unemployment
beneﬁts, retirement beneﬁts and access to public education. These restrictions are greatest
for low and medium-skilled ‘temporary’ worker programmes.

5

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
Political participation policies seem to have consistently positive effects on the levels of
immigrants’ participation in the public life of their destination country in terms of voting inelections, other forms of conventional and unconventional participation. Increased participation
is associated with a greater sense of political engagement and trust in the destination country.
Inclusive policies also help to close the gap between immigrants and non-immigrants in terms of
their satisfaction with life and in terms of their demands on politicians in their destination country.
Political participation is a slight area of weakness for integration policy in most countries.
Looking at the major destinations for Egyptian immigrants, political participation policies aremost inclusive in Australia, Germany and Nordic countries. These policies are more limited in
Canada, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and the UK. They arehighly restricted in Greece, Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Political rights generally
do not vary between immigration categories or skill-levels. These policies in this area are very
slow to change over time.

NATURALISATION
Naturalisation policies emerge as one of the strongest determining factors behind naturalisation
rates for ﬁrst generation immigrants. The policies with the greatest effects on naturalisation seemto be the dual nationality policies of the origin and destination country, birthright citizenship forthe second and third generation and the restrictiveness of the legal and procedural requirements.
Facilitating naturalisation policies is strongly and positively linked to the development of acommon sense of belonging, identity, trust and openness between immigrants and thegeneral public. Naturalisation policies also seem to impact immigrants’ ‘citizenship premium’in terms of the boost to their employment, language learning and civic participation.
Given the importance of naturalisation policies for citizenship and belonging and theirpotential for employment and mobility, Egyptian immigrants could beneﬁt from naturalisation
reforms in their destination countries. For example, Egyptian immigrants still face restrictions
to dual nationality in a few major destination countries (e.g. Kuwait, UAE, Germany, Austria
and Netherlands). For most Egyptian immigrants, the greatest obstacle to naturalisation isthe very long residence duration requirement in the largest destination countries for Egyptian
immigrants: UAE (30 years), Bahrain (25), Qatar (25), Kuwait (20), Oman (20) and Lebanon(ordinary naturalisation restricted).

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
Anti-discrimination policies can have a long-term impact on changing public attitudes, awareness,trust and reporting on discrimination. In countries with stronger policies, people are more likely
to be aware of discrimination as a problem and know their rights. Greater knowledge of rights
is associated over time with higher reporting of witnessing discrimination and lower levels ofidentiﬁcation as discriminated minority groups. The potential reason for this change in reportingand identiﬁcation over time could be immigrants’ growing levels of trust under these supportive
conditions. Stronger policies appear associated with greater levels of immigrant trust in thepolice and legal system and a more shared sense of social trust and satisfaction with democracy.
6

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and OutcomesIntroductionE

gyptian immigrants are working around the world in the Middle East and North Africa(MENA) region, Europe and the traditional English-speaking destination countries.
The UN’s 2019 estimations suggest that most are concentrated in MENA countries

like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Sizeable communities exist across the
MENA region and in Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands,
the United Kingdom and the United States. While their speciﬁc proﬁle and needs differ
country-by-country, the most common experience of Egyptian immigrants are as migrant
workers in younger working-age cohorts. They need to secure stable employment at theappropriate salary and qualiﬁcation level. For this, they may need to invest in their professional
and language skills and qualiﬁcations. They need full healthcare coverage and protection
from discrimination. Over time, they will need to secure their family life and their future plans.
They will want to participate fully in life, both in their destination country and back in Egypt.
In all these ways, Egyptians abroad differ little from other immigrants, who have a wide
diversity of reasons for migration and experiences of discrimination and integration.
Responding to immigrants and society’s needs is the main aim of integration policies. The
official government deﬁnitions of integration in most destination countries are related to theidea of a ‘two-way’ process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and non-immigrants.
Integration policies mainly regulate this process in two ways. Firstly, government policies
regulate the extent to which immigrants and non-immigrants are granted equal rights andresponsibilities. Secondly, government policies regulate the extent to which targeted policies
and services invest in securing equal opportunities and outcomes for immigrants, as adisadvantaged or discriminated group. These deﬁnitions also present integration as a multidimensional policy and process involving most areas of public life: employment, education,
health, family life, political participation, immigration and residence policies, and so on. Nondiscrimination is usually presented as the main way for non-immigrants to contribute to this‘two-way’ process. While the integration process is also seen as ‘local’ and local authorities
are accorded a speciﬁc role, most policies in these areas of life are either regulated or strongly
inﬂuenced by national policies and the central government.
This research report reviews the existing integration policies worldwide and their potential
impacts on harnessing the potential for all migrants to contribute their skills to the labour
market and daily life of their destination country. The key deliverable of this report is the
production of an overview of the data linking integration policies to the outcomes andbeneﬁciaries that each policy aims to address.
7

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Given the broad geographical and thematic scope of the links between policies and outcomes,
the most appropriate methodology for this report is secondary meta-data collection andanalysis of the trends and effectiveness of integration policies. The author had access to thelatest labour migration and integration policy indicators for all destination countries coveredby comparable indexes. To provide this overview of data linking integration policies tooutcomes, the author conducted a full interdisciplinary literature review of all multivariate or
multilevel analyses over the past decade that studied these links. These studies mostly
measure integration policies by using the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), which
are the most comprehensive, reliable and widely cited indicators of integration policies. This
review therefore focused on MIPEX studies for the sake of comparability. These studies
measure outcomes in terms of labour migration and labour market participation, participationin most other areas of life as well as public attitudes. A speciﬁc analysis of integration
indicators for immigrants from Egypt is not possible, due to the data limitations and sample
sizes of the available international datasets. However, the report was able to identify any
ﬁndings speciﬁcally related to outcomes for immigrants from the MENA region or Muslim
family backgrounds. In the end, this global literature review identiﬁed 128 robust studies thatanalysed 414 links between a wide variety of integration policies and outcomes. The 128
studies are too numerous for this report’s list of references, but all can be publicly accessed
via Google Scholar by typing in the study’s publication year, the author’s last name and
MIPEX or ‘Migrant Integration Policy Index.’ The list of references in this report refers to thekey international resources and overviews of integration policies that can be used by
Egyptian stakeholders to develop country-speciﬁc strategies.
The report is structured in separate sections for each area of policy covered by thecomprehensive MIPEX index and by the corresponding studies linking policies and outcomes.
The report is divided into nine sections: overall integration policies (i.e. a country’s generalapproach to equal rights and opportunities for immigrants), targeted labour market mobility
policies, family reuniﬁcation policies, targeted education policies for migrant children, targeted
migrant health policies, political participation policies, permanent residence policies, access tonationality policies and anti-discrimination policies. Each section analyses the main ﬁndings,
similarities and differences between these studies of integration policies and outcomes.
Within each section, the ﬁrst sub-section examines the links between that speciﬁc integration
policy (i.e. migrant health policies) and the speciﬁc outcomes and beneﬁciaries that policy
aims to address (i.e. migrant health outcomes). This section also considers more general
studies linking overall integration policies (i.e. the overall MIPEX score) with outcomes in thatspeciﬁc area (i.e. migrant health outcomes). The second sub-section looks more broadly at
the links identiﬁed between the speciﬁc integration policy (i.e. migrant health policies) andintegration outcomes in other areas (employment, education, public opinion, etc.) The
multidimensionality of integration can lead policies in one area to affect outcomes in several
other areas. The third and ﬁnal sub-section reviews that the speciﬁc integration policies facing

8

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Egyptian immigrants around the world. Using MIPEX and comparable indexes, this section
captures the international range of policies, reform trends, standards for best practice andkey international resources where available. This third sub-section provides a gap analysis
relative to the context for Egyptian immigrants abroad, which Egyptian stakeholders can use
as a roadmap to inform their work to advocate for stronger integration policies in the main
destination countries.
The report’s ﬁndings on the links between integration policies and outcomes are generally
applicable to developed democracies, as international multivariate studies are limited in
geographical scope to Europe (mostly Western Europe) and, occasionally, OECD countries.
The report’s conclusions highlight the main results on the links between integration policies
and outcomes. This review gives indications of the potential effectiveness and gaps for
integration policies facing Egyptian immigrants around the world. Based on these ﬁndings,
the report’s conclusions propose recommendations for Egyptian policymakers and stakeholders
to promote the interests of Egyptian immigrants in their main destination countries.

9Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

1. Trends on integration policies

1.1

LINK BETWEEN OVERALL INTEGRATION POLICIES AND OUTCOMES

A country’s overall approach to integration policy is strongly associated with public
attitudes towards immigrants, based on 23 MIPEX studies of over 800,000 people acrossEurope. The relationship is strongest with the level of anti-immigrant attitudes andperceived threats from immigrants. Countries with more inclusive integration policies,
as measured by MIPEX, enjoy higher levels of public support for immigrants (Just andAnderson 2014 and Karpiński and Wysieńska-Di Carlo 2018) and for inclusive policies(Brady and Finnigan 2014, Schroyens et al. 2015, Heizmann 2016, Heizmann and Ziller2020). They also experience lower levels of anti-immigrant attitudes (Hooghe andVroome 2015, Bello 2016, Visintin et al. 2018, Kim and Byun 2019), anti-Muslim attitudes(Kaya 2015 and Schlueter et al. 2020) and perceptions of immigrant threats (Schlueter
et al. 2013 and Callens and Meuleman 2017), particularly in terms of economic threats(Heizmann 2015, Hooghe and Vroome 2015 and Callens and Meuleman 2017). Inclusive
integration policies also seem related to higher levels of public social trust (Reeskens
2010 and Zimdars and Tampubolon 2012). Policies and public opinion are likely tocontinuously inﬂuence each other as a virtuous or vicious circle (Callens and Meuleman2017). As summarised by Callens 2015, the virtuous circle is where inclusive integration
policies relate to positive public opinion on immigrants, which in turn can reduce thelevel of perceived threat and anti-immigrant attitudes. In contrast, the vicious circle iswhere exclusionary policies reinforce perceptions of threat. One longitudinal study(Schlueter et al. 2013) suggests that policies may have a greater impact on public opinion
than vice-versa. Further research is necessary to investigate the dynamics between
integration policies and public opinion.
The strong link between integration policies and public attitudes towards immigrants
does not mean that these policies reﬂect all aspects of public opinion. For example,
integration policies do not seem to affect the public’s perceptions of immigrants ascultural threats (Callens and Meuleman 2017). Studies disagree about whether integration
policies are related to the level of voting for far-right or populist parties (for example,
Kauff et al. 2013, Werts et al. 2013 and Podobnik et al. 2019). Similarly, integration policies
are not necessarily positively related to the public’s level of satisfaction or trust withsociety, democracy, institutions or government (McLaren 2010, Hooghe and Vroome
2015 and Pennings 2017). These levels often differ little between countries with inclusive
vs. restrictive integration policies. Public dissatisfaction is usually related to broader

10Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomestrends of political polarisation in the developed world and many topics remain up for
debate in a diverse democracy.
The positive dynamic between integration policies and public opinion directly shapes
immigrants’ opportunities for integration. ‘Contact theory’ – the idea that positive
attitudes increase contacts and positive experiences for immigrants and the public –appear to play out in practice (Green et al. 2020). Strong integration policies areassociated not only with more positive attitudes towards immigrants, but also with more
frequent and more positive everyday contacts between immigrants and the public.
Integration policies provide greater opportunities for interaction to develop skills andnetworks as well as a more positive narrative for immigrants and the public to develop
a common sense of belonging. As a result, the positive impacts of inclusive integration
policies can be measured in terms of both ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ outcomes for
immigrants and the public.
In terms of ‘subjective’ outcomes, a more common sense of belonging and identity
emerges in countries with overall inclusive integration policies. Supportive policies andattitudes seem to bring together the identities of immigrants and non-immigrants. Under
inclusive policies, immigrants and non-immigrants generally tend to develop morecommon and more inclusive ideas about national identity (Jugert et al. 2018, Visintin etal. 2018 and Igarashi 2019) and patriotism (Ariely 2018). More broadly, comparative
studies from Europe ﬁnd that a supportive context is a major factor that helps to close
gaps in life satisfaction for long-settled immigrants from non-European and developing
countries (Hadjar and Backes 2013, Hendriks and Bartram 2016, Kogan et al. 2018,
Heizmann and Böhnke 2019). Immigrants’ greater sense of well-being under inclusive
integration policies also extends to their health outcomes. A country’s overall integration
policy appear to have major effects on immigrants’ health in terms of both ‘subjective’and ‘objective’ health outcomes. Eleven MIPEX studies investigate the links between
overall integration policies and migrant health, which are fully reviewed in this related
section in this report. Although positive relationships do not emerge with all aspects ofidentity, trust and well-being, policies emerge as a potentially major factor shaping theoverall process of identity formation and trust between immigrants and non-immigrants.
In terms of ‘objective’ outcomes, a country’s overall approach to integration predicts
several key steps in the integration process. The effects of these policies are often mostobvious for immigrants from non-European countries and discriminated groups,
including those from North Africa and Muslim family backgrounds. Granting equal rights
and opportunities to immigrants helps to close the gaps in their political participation,interest and trust (Ruedin 2013, Helbling et al. 2015, Welge 2015 and Thorkelson 2016).
Results are more mixed and complex for the links with employment and educational
outcomes. An earlier review of studies (see MIPEX 2015 and Bilgili et al. 2015) suggested
that inclusive policies help immigrants in practice to reunite their families, get basic
training, become permanent residents, voters and citizens and use their rights as victimsof discrimination. This updated review of MIPEX studies explores all these relationships
between overall integration policies and outcomes, with detailed results in each thematic
section of this report.
11

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

1.2 OVERALL INTEGRATION POLICIES FACING EGYPTIAN IMMIGRANTS
AROUND THE WORLD
Summarising these general ﬁndings, a country’s approach to integration policy is strongly
related to public and immigrants’ attitudes and identities as well as to immigrants’ wellbeing, political participation and several other outcomes. Comparable data on integration
policies are mostly available for developed countries via MIPEX (2015) and ICRI (2008),
which are presented in Figure 1. The two indexes slightly differ in their thematic coverageof integration policies. In order to enhance comparability of the two indexes, an adaptedscore was calculated for each index, based on a simple average restricted to the policies
measured by both indexes: family reuniﬁcation, education, political participation, access tonationality and anti-discrimination policies. These individual integration policies will becompared in each thematic section of this report. These adapted MIPEX and ICRI scoresfor overall integration policies are presented in Figure 2. This ﬁgure also includes aslightly different index (Ruhs 2009), which focuses only on the rights of migrant workers.
Looking at the major destination countries for Egyptian immigrants, integration policies
overall are fully inclusive and developed in only a few countries, such as Australia andCanada. Integration policies overall are only slightly inclusive, with a few areas of
weakness, in countries like France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK. Policies
are highly restricted and under-developed in countries like Kuwait, Israel, Oman, Saudi
Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.
According to the latest MIPEX 2015, the international trends are ambivalent towards the
granting of equal rights and opportunities to immigrants. On the one hand, immigrants
generally face greater obstacles in emerging destination countries with small numbersof immigrants and high levels of anti-immigrant sentiment. On the other hand, immigrants
usually beneﬁt from more equal rights and opportunities in wealthier, older and larger
countries of immigration, for example in Western Europe and the English-speaking world.
Internationally, the greatest areas of strength are that migrant workers, reunited families
and permanent residents enjoy basic security, rights and protection from discrimination.
In contrast, the greatest obstacles are for foreign citizens to become citizens or politically
active and for mainstream services to guarantee equal access and opportunities for
immigrants (targeted employment, education and health support). The international
trends and situation for Egyptian immigrants are analysed in each of the thematic
sections of this report.
Figure 1: Inclusiveness of overall integration policies in selected destination countries
80

78

75
70 69 69 68

67 66

63 61

60

60 60 59 59 59

57 57 57 56

54 53 53 52 52

50 49

47 46 45 45 45 45

44 44 44 43 4240

41 40 39 39 39

38 37 37

35 35 34

31

28

25
19

20

0

SE

NZ

NO

BE

US

NL

AR

DK

UK

ZA

KR

IE

AT

AL

HU

CZ

SI

JP

BG

MT

BH

MK

LT

Note: Authors own compilation of MIPEX indicators (2015 in green) and ICRI (2008 inblue). Country names coded to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code.
12

CY

LV

TU

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Figure 2: Adapted indexes of overall integration policies (adapted MIPEX, ICRI and Ruhs Index)

100

90 88
80 77

80

76

75

71

70 70 70

70 69 69

67 64
63

63 62

60

59 59 58

57

56

56 56

55 54

54

53 53

51

48

40
20
0

50

AG

47

BZ

45

PT

SE

TH

DO

NZ

MX

CA

43 43 43 43 43 42
41

40

AU

HK

FI

CO

BE NO AR

US

LU

40 40 40 40 40 39
38 38 38 38

DE

38

NL

GH UK

ID

35 35 35 34

30

FR

ES

IT

IE

31

31

31 30

CN

KR

27

26 25 25

SI

DK AL

23

20
10

6

0
ZA VE

AT

GR MY CZ HU

CH

IS

RS

ME MK

PL

RO

EE BH

MD

SK BG HR

CY MT

JP

LT

AE OM TW SA

LV

RU TU

IL

SG KW

Note: Authors own compilation and adaptation of MIPEX indicators (2015 in green), ICRI
(2008 in blue) and Ruhs (2009 in purple). MIPEX and ICRI scores are adapted simple
average of their common policy dimensions: family reuniﬁcation, education, politicalparticipation, access to nationality and anti-discrimination policies. The Ruhs score
reﬂects the original overall index score. Country names coded to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code.

13Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

2. Labour market mobility policies

2.1 LINK BETWEEN LABOUR MARKET POLICIES AND OUTCOMES
With the limited available evidence, labour market integration seems to be primarily
explained by countries’ general economic migration policies and context, rather than by
their targeted integration policies. Given the importance of labour market integration ingovernments’ integration agendas, it is surprising that these policies and outcomes areinvestigated in only nine speciﬁc MIPEX studies and three more general MIPEX studies overthe past decade. Most of these studies do not control for migrants’ reason for migrationand the economic situation at and since their arrival. Nor do most try to match thedifferent types of targeted policies with their speciﬁc beneﬁciaries and outcomes. Morerobust impact evaluations have concluded that immigrants beneﬁt signiﬁcantly fromprogrammes providing early work experience, country-speciﬁc vocational training, startup funds for entrepreneurs and job search (see Butschek and Walter 2014, Bilgili 2015
and Liebig and Huddleston 2015). Therefore, more targeted research is needed before
any robust conclusions can be drawn from these studies on the effectiveness of labour
market mobility policies. In addition to these 12 studies, several dozen more MIPEX studies
have investigated the link between employment outcomes and integration policies otherthan labour market mobility. Of the 70 links studied, 28 positive links emerge with mostintegration policies measured by MIPEX, particularly access to nationality and antidiscrimination, which will be presented in later sections.
Looking only at studies comparing labour market policies and outcomes, these policies do
not seem particularly relevant for access to employment– i.e. whether immigrants andtheir descendants are working or looking for a job. These policies, as measured by MIPEX,
are not related to their overall participation (Bredtmann and Otten 2015, Kesler 2016 andCebolla-Boado and Finotelli 2015), unemployment (Bergh 2014, Cebolla-Boado andFinotelli 2015 and Lancee 2016) or employment rates (Bisin et al. 2011 and Kislev 2017). A
few studies do observe effects worthy of further investigation. For example, targeted
policies have a signiﬁcant effect on access to work permits (Migali and Natale 2017) and asmall effect on the participation rates for non-EU immigrants (Kesler 2017). These policies
also seem to boost the employment rates for discriminated groups like non-EU immigrants
with strong ethnic identities (Bisin et al. 2011). This study ﬁnds that stronger targeted policies
decrease the employment penalties that they experience in European labour markets.
More encouraging results emerge about the potential beneﬁts of targeted integration
policies for the long-term outcomes of employed immigrants. Low-educated immigrant14

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

workers are more likely to experience in-work poverty, without a sufficient or secure income
to meet their needs, while highly-educated immigrant workers are more likely to experience
over-qualiﬁcation and brain waste, working in jobs far below their education level fromtheir origin country (Liebig and Huddleston 2015). Speciﬁc policies have small positiveeffects on their exposure to overqualiﬁcation (Aleksynska and Tritah 2013 and ProkicBreuer and McManus 2016), job relocation opportunities (Nowotny 2011 and Guzi et al.
2015) and occupational status (Platt et al. ongoing), although differences sometimes
emerge for men and women (Palencia-Esteban 2019). One explanation for these weak
and mixed results so far could be that targeted policies may be too new, small-scale, or
generic to reach beneﬁciaries and affect aggregate outcomes at country level (see Bilgili
et al. 2015). Another possible interpretation is that these policies aim less at immigrants’
immediate labour market participation and more at improving their country-speciﬁc skills
and qualiﬁcations. According to this logic, these policies encourage immigrants to makeinvestments in their long-term skills, even if participation in these programmes temporarily
depresses their participation in the labour market. These policies might also be designed
to be responsive to the needs of at-risk groups. In that case, policies would be stronger
in countries with mostly low-educated non-economic immigrants in need of support andweaker in countries with mostly high-skilled migrant workers. If this logic holds, then studies
simply comparing policies to labour market outcomes may lead to misleading results known
as ‘reverse causality.’ In other words, the absence of a systematically positive relationshipbetween policies and outcomes across all countries may not be interpreted as theineffectiveness of policies, but rather as the responsiveness and uptake of these policies
to speciﬁc national contexts.
This logic of policy responsiveness bears out in a few speciﬁc MIPEX studies where therelationship between policies and employment outcomes were, surprisingly, negative.
This means that policies are better developed where immigrants’ labour market situation is
weaker, while policies are under-developed where immigrants are in a stronger position on
the labour market. Aleksynska and Tritah 2013 ﬁnd that targeted support is negatively linked
to immigrants’ levels of overqualiﬁcation, meaning that countries offering signiﬁcant support
tend to have more immigrants working below their qualiﬁcations. This ﬁnding could
indicate that policies are responsive to overqualiﬁcation and, even, employing
overqualiﬁcation as a short-term strategy by placing immigrants in entry-level jobs
combined with on-the-job language and vocational training. Similar negative relationships
emerge between policies and immigrants’ relative income levels (Kislev 2017), unemployment(Cebolla-Boado and Finotelli 2015) and skill levels (Levels et al. 2017). Kislev 2017 interprets
negative relationships like these as a positive indicator of immigrants’ participation intargeted policies; immigrants’ labour market participation would be delayed while they
participate in adult education measures. Indeed, Zwysen and Demireva 2020 ﬁnd thatstrong labour market mobility policies are associated with higher levels of participation inlanguage courses and further education for non-EU family migrants, refugees and migrant
workers arriving without job offers. This study suggests that stronger policies are associatedwith higher levels of investment in immigrants’ skills and qualiﬁcations, with diffuse effects
that are hard to capture in standard measures of labour market integration. Further
research is required into the role of these policies in responding to labour market needs
and supporting this long-term investment for different categories of non-EU immigrants.
15

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

2.2 LINK BETWEEN LABOUR MARKET POLICIES AND OTHERINTEGRATION OUTCOMES
Studies are limited and their results are mixed about the links between policies andother integration outcomes. Only 13 MIPEX studies have considered the possible
effects of labour market mobility policies on areas outside employment.
Labour market mobility policies seem positively related to public attitudes and to
immigrants’ attitudes. In terms of public attitudes, two studies (Careja and Andreß 2013
and Callens and Meuleman 2017) conclude that these policies inﬂuence to what extent
the public sees immigrants as an economic threat or as an opportunity. More inclusive
policies do not lead to greater perceptions of competition and economic threat, butrather to lower perceptions of economic threat and greater perceptions of immigrants’positive contributions. Callens and Meuleman 2017 calculate that an increase of 10
points on the MIPEX scale for labour market mobility policies would improve public
attitudes about the economic role of immigrants by an average of six percentage
points. The links with public opinion require further investigation, as perceptions of
economic threat are just one aspect of public opinion. These policies appear unrelated
for perceptions of cultural threat (Callens and Meuleman 2017) and negative for overallsocial trust (Zimdars and Tampubolon 2012).
In terms of immigrants’ attitudes, labour market mobility policies may improve immigrants’general perceptions, without noticeable effects on speciﬁc integration outcomes,
according to the preliminary studies to date. Stronger policies may be associated withgreater levels of life satisfaction (de Freitas et al. 2018), greater interest in the country
as a destination (Beine et al. 2019) and lower levels of discrimination-related depression(de Freitas et al. 2018). Any direct link between these policies and discrimination levels
seems weak (André and Dronkers 2016). Beyond this, no clear links emerge from the
few MIPEX studies comparing labour market mobility policies to outcomes on migranteducation (Fossati 2010 and 2011 and Schlicht-Schmälzle and Möller 2012) or health(Malmusi et al. 2015, Bakhtiari et al. 2018 and De Freitas et al. 2018). Future studies
should match different labour market mobility policies to their speciﬁc beneﬁciaries
and to the related long-term integration outcomes that the policy aims to address.

2.3 LABOUR MARKET POLICIES FACING EGYPTIAN IMMIGRANTS
AROUND THE WORLD
Despite the limited and mixed results from the previously mentioned studies, acombination of various targeted policies may improve immigrants’ investment in theirskills, employment quality and long-term labour market mobility in the destination
country. MIPEX 2015 is the only international source with comparative indicators on migrantlabour market mobility policies (see Figure 3). Further comparative information isavailable through the IOM (Migration Governance Index), OECD (International Migration
Outlooks and targeted publications) and European Commission (European Website
on Integration and European Migration Network).

16

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Among the top destinations for Egyptian immigrants included in MIPEX, labour market
mobility policies are the most developed in Austria, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands
and the US. These policies are slightly less strong in Australia, France, Greece and the
UK. They were the least developed in Cyprus and Turkey. In general, they are strongest in
traditional destination countries and Western Europe and weakest in newer destination
countries in Central and Southeastern Europe. MIPEX 2015 observed that labour market
mobility policies are usually the best developed area of a country’s integration policies.
On average across the MIPEX countries, family and long-term residents can immediately
access the private labour market, public employment services and training. The mainarea of weakness is the development of targeted support measures to recognise
newcomers’ skills or foreign qualiﬁcations and to orient them to appropriate jobs andservices. Labour market mobility policies are one of the few areas of integration policy
where international reform trends are consistently strong and positive. The majority of
MIPEX countries made improvements to these policies between 2010 and 2015. Newer
destination countries tend to focus on legislative reforms of work migration channels
and rights, while more established destinations go further by piloting and expanding
targeted support measures. Summarising policies from different countries, MIPEX 2015sets the following standard for best practice on labour market mobility:“A migrant with the right to work and live in the country has the same chances aseveryone else in the labour market. From day one in the country, she and her family
members can start applying for any job in the private or public sector. She gets her
qualiﬁcations from abroad recognised. She can then improve her skills throughtraining and study grants. The state encourages her by targeting her speciﬁc needs– for example, she can take language courses focused on her profession. Job
mentors and trained staff help her assess skills and use public employment
services. Once employed, she has the same rights as all workers in the country.”

Figure 3: Inclusiveness of labour market mobility policies in selected destination countries
100

98
91 90

86
81 80 7980

73 73 72 71

67 67 66 65 64 64
59 58 57

60

56 56 56 55 54 54

52 51 50 50

46 46 46 45

42 40 40 40

40

38 38 38 38

34
21

20

Note: Authors own compilation of MIPEX indicators (2015 in green).

17

SK
TU

SI
CY

MK

IE
PL

HU

LT

RU

MT
LU

LV

AL
ME

RS

IS

BG

CZ

HR

GR
FR

MD

UK

BH

RO

AT

CH
AU

BE

IT

JP

US

NZ

ES

KR

EE

NL

FI

DK

DE

CA

NO

SE

PT

0

15

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

3. Family reunification policies

3.1 LINK BETWEEN FAMILY REUNIFICATION POLICIES AND OUTCOMES
Family reuniﬁcation policies and their impacts on integration have been rarely
investigated through robust multivariate analysis. Family reuniﬁcation can be seen as
both migration and integration. While these policies provide a migration channel for
dependent family members, these policies also function as integration policies as they
regulate the right to family life for the sponsor and the socio-economic rights andsupport for dependent adults and children. Despite the potential importance of family
reuniﬁcation policies for integration, only 20 studies have investigated the link between
these policies, as measured by MIPEX, and integration outcomes. Of these 20 studies,
only three speciﬁcally focus on family reuniﬁcation policies as a distinct policy areaand measure family-speciﬁc outcomes and hypotheses. The other 17 studies include
family reuniﬁcation policies as one integration policy among all others, with little-to-no
methodological attention to the speciﬁc objectives, beneﬁciaries and outcomes offamily reuniﬁcation (see Bilgili et al. 2015). Given that these studies do not properly
match family reuniﬁcation policies to the speciﬁc integration outcomes that they aim
to address, the methodological weaknesses of these few studies limit the applicability
and signiﬁcance of many of their ﬁndings. Future opportunities for analysis are
emerging, as international surveys are increasingly including the variable “reason for
migration”, including family reasons. These surveys can then be used for dedicatedanalysis of the integration process of family migrants in comparison to other categoriesof migrants with the same individual and origin characteristics.
The three speciﬁc studies on family reuniﬁcation policies (Sumino 2014, Migali and
Natale 2017 and Sand and Gruber 2018) suggest that policies may signiﬁcantly affectimmigrants’ right to family life and the well-being of the different members of thefamily. Given the under-investment in robust research linking family reuniﬁcation
policies and outcomes, the conclusions from these three speciﬁc studies are tentative
but useful for debate on the role of family reuniﬁcation policies in the long-term
integration process.

18

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and OutcomesFirstly, the main purpose of these policies is to regulate the reuniﬁcation of sponsors
with their family members. Indeed, policies seem to have a signiﬁcant and positiveeffect on the number of family reuniﬁcations, as Migali and Natale 2017 have shown
across Europe based on the number of ﬁrst permits given for family reasons. Non-EU
families are more likely to reunite in countries with inclusive policies, while non-EU
family reuniﬁcations are rarer in countries with restrictive policies. These ﬁndings by
Migali and Natale 2017 echo the broader ﬁndings by Beverelli 2020 that family
reuniﬁcation policies are one of the few integration policies that may impact on nonEU bilateral migration ﬂows. Interestingly, family reuniﬁcation policies may not
constitute the so-called “pull factor” often assumed in political debates, as Beine et al.
2019 do not ﬁnd that these policies affect the overall attractiveness of the country toother potential migrants living in their country of origin. Instead, this increase in family
mobility may serve as an indicator of family’s aspirations for long-term settlement andlocal integration. In countries facilitating family reuniﬁcation, immigrants are less likely
to live in segregated neighbourhoods (Ambinakudige and Lichter 2019) and more likely
to remain settled in their area rather than move to new regions or countries due to job
shortages (Guzi et al. 2015).
A second study on family reuniﬁcation policies (Sand and Gruber 2018) focuses on
reducing the gap in well-being between immigrants and non-immigrants, speciﬁcallyamong the elderly (ages 50-85). The few other MIPEX studies including family
reuniﬁcation suggest these policies do not have widespread effects on all immigrants’
overall levels of life satisfaction (De Freitas et al. 2018) and health (Bakhtiari et al. 2018).
Nor would one empirically expect such a population-wide effect, given that the
majority of immigrants are young, often single people, who were not family migrants
or ever separated from their spouse or children (OECD 2017b). Rather, as immigrants
age into more fragile stages of their lives, the long-term beneﬁts of family reuniﬁcation
may become more evident. The well-designed study of ageing by Sand and Gruber
2018 observe that, in countries with restrictive family reuniﬁcation policies, immigrantelderly experience much lower levels of well-being than non-immigrant elderly.
Whereas in countries facilitating family reuniﬁcation, the immigrant elderly experiencelevels of well-being that are similar to non-immigrant elderly, even after controlling forthe key individual-level factors that normally determine well-being. This level of wellbeing may be related to the psychological security of family life and long-term
settlement, as highlighted above.

19

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

3.2 LINK BETWEEN FAMILY REUNIFICATION POLICIES AND
OTHER INTEGRATION OUTCOMES
This subjective feeling of well-being may stem from the concrete beneﬁts of family
reuniﬁcation for the socio-economic integration of family members. The OECD has
started to investigate the effects of rapid family reuniﬁcation; a younger age of
migration, longer residence duration and wider family and social networks in the
country signiﬁcantly improve immigrants’ socio-economic outcomes (OECD 2012,2017a and 2019). Looking across Europe, Bisin et al. 2011 ﬁnd that facilitating family
reuniﬁcation is generally associated with positive employment outcomes for most nonEU immigrants, although the effects may be negative for immigrants with strong ethnic
identities, which can limit their social networks. Facilitating family reuniﬁcation may
also provide immigrant women with the resources and networks they need to get out ofgender segregated occupations into the mainstream labour market (Palencia-Esteban2019). Direct links between family reuniﬁcation policies and education outcomes are often
hard to identify in individual studies (Fossati 2010, Fossati 2011, Schlicht-Schmälzle andMöller 2012). A wider meta-analysis suggests that countries facilitating family reuniﬁcation
may see overall beneﬁts in terms of not only immigrant children’s academic performance,
but also their socialisation and behaviour at school (Dimitrova et al. 2016). Turning fromchildren to adults, a new study by Zwysen and Demireva 2020 ﬁnd slightly negative
relationships between family reuniﬁcation policies and the uptake of further education
for all categories of non-EU immigrants. Reviewing this limited literature on family
reuniﬁcation policies and outcomes, further research is needed on the differentialsocio-economic impacts for male and female sponsors, spouses and children fromdifferent migrant groups and reasons for migration.
The third speciﬁc study on family reuniﬁcation questions whether these policies have wider
effects on public opinion and immigrants’ sense of belonging. Sumino 2014 presents family
reuniﬁcation rights as a form of multiculturalism that diminishes public support for statepolicies, although his results are statistically weak. Interestingly, the few other scholars
investigating the link between family reunion and public opinion have uncovered some
initially positive relationships. Zimdars and Tampubolon 2012 observe that family
reuniﬁcation and integration policies are all positively associated with high levels of trustin society. Faoro 2016 ﬁnds that inclusive family reuniﬁcation policies are the most important
integration policy for building trust in the country’s public institutions, both among
immigrants and their second-generation children. The study speculates that inclusive family
policies make the second generation feel that their family is treated equally and fairly.
Similarly, André and Dronkers 2016 suggest that these policies may also have some
limited effect on whether immigrants and their children identify as a discriminated groupin society, although a study by De Freitas et al. 2018 does not ﬁnd an effect. Looking
beyond general levels of trust, more focused studies could look at the effects of policies
on family migrants in terms of their trust, social identity and political participation.

20

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

3.3 FAMILY REUNIFICATION POLICIES FACING EGYPTIAN IMMIGRANTS
AROUND THE WORLD
Family reuniﬁcation policies may be important to secure the family life, settlement andwell-being of the limited number of Egyptian immigrants who live separated from theirspouse, children and other direct dependents. Comparable data on these policies aremostly available from democracies in the developed world via MIPEX (2015) and ICRI
(2008), which are presented in Figure 4. A slightly different index (Ruhs 2009) focused
only on the rights of migrant workers. This migrant workers’ index (see results in Ruhs 2011)
found that labour immigration programmes in the Gulf countries and Southeast Asia
place signiﬁcantly more family restrictions than programmes in Latin America, Europe andNorth America. Restrictions are greatest for low and medium-skilled ‘temporary’ worker
programmes. Looking at the major destination countries for Egyptian immigrants, theright to family reuniﬁcation is relatively secure in countries like Australia, Canada, Italy
and the US, more insecure in countries like Austria, Cyprus, France, Turkey and the UK
and highly restricted in countries like Kuwait, Israel, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates.
All three of these indexes agree on the common basic elements of a family reuniﬁcation
policy. Legislation may deﬁne family reuniﬁcation as a right or only a discretionary
decision by authorities. The eligibility of sponsors is usually deﬁned in terms of theeligible categories of temporary residents and any residence duration requirements. The
eligibility of family members can be restricted to only spouses and minor children or
enlarged to include all direct dependents including a partner, adult children, dependent
parents or grandparents. Reunited family members are generally granted the same
type of residence permit as their sponsor, with the same residence duration, right towork and social beneﬁts. Going further, MIPEX sets the following standard for bestpractice on family reuniﬁcation:“Families who are successfully reunited together have the socio-cultural stability
to fully participate in society. In Europe, a non-EU family has the same rights andresponsibilities as an EU family moving from one country to another. Upon arrival,
any legal resident has the right to live with her spouse/partner, dependent
children, and dependent parents and grandparents. They have the right to reunite
in the country if they have a basic legal income and meet the legal requirements.
Authorities have no reason to reject her application if it’s not fraudulent and posesno security threat. The procedure is free and short. The state promotes thefamily’s integration by facilitating autonomous residence and guaranteeing equal
access as their sponsor to schools, jobs and social programmes.”
In practice, these policies differ widely across the developed world. MIPEX 2015 andOECD 2017b provide comparative overviews of these policies. Both studies note thatpolicies are most inclusive for spouses and minor children of citizens, long-term residents
and highly skilled migrants, but highly restricted for temporary and low-skilled migrants.

21

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

According to the OECD 2019, the requirements for family reuniﬁcation are becoming
more restrictive across the developed world, although little evidence exists of a positiveeffect of these restrictions on integration outcomes such as employment. Almost all
OECD countries impose an income requirement, while requirements are imposed on
housing in 25, on residence duration in 14 and on pre-departure language skills in 5.
Figure 4: Inclusiveness of family reuniﬁcation policies in selected destination countries
100 100

100
90

88

85

83

80

80 79

78

77

75

72

72

69

68 68

67

67

67

67

66 65

65 64 64

64 64

63

61

61

61

61

US

LU

BG

NO

HK

JP

HU

MK

11

11
0

0

0

GH IL

TW

60

40

20

0

60

BZ

AG

59 59

ES

PT

AR MX

SI

CA

SE

AL

57

57 56 56 56 56
55 55
51

50

ZA

BE

IT

HR

FI

NZ

TH

EE

AU

RO

PL

BH MD

KR

50 50 49
48 48
44 44 44 42 42

40

40 39
33
29

30

25 25

22

20
11

10
0

IS

LT

DE

CZ

NL

RS

CO SK

GR

LV

FR

VE

AT TU CH

MT

DO

ID

MY DK

RU

IE

CY

UK ME KW SG OM AE CN SA

Note: Author’s own compilation of MIPEX indicators (2015 in green), ICRI (2008 in blue
including IL and GH) and Ruhs (2009 in purple including TW). Country names coded to
ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code.

22Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

4. Migrant education policies

4.1 LINK BETWEEN MIGRANT EDUCATION POLICIES AND OUTCOMES
Migrant education policies may not impact the educational outcomes of all children.
Over the past decade, 12 MIPEX studies have been published on the links between
educational outcomes and education or integration policies. Overall, migrant educationand integration policies do not seem to have systematic effects on the academic
outcomes of all ﬁrst and second generation pupils (Fossati 2010 and 2011, Dronkers
and de Heus 2012, Cebolla-Boado and Finotelli 2015, Dimitrova et al. 2016, van deWerfhorst and Heath 2019, Arikan et al. 2020, Gonneke et al. 2020). However, ﬁve
speciﬁc MIPEX studies have investigated further by matching migrant education
policies to the beneﬁciaries and outcomes targeted by these policies. These results on
migrant education policies have been replicated in a few broader MIPEX studies of thelinks between education outcomes and integration policies overall.
Inclusive education and integration policies can facilitate a stronger sense of belonging
and more equitable academic progress for youth of various ethnic backgrounds. Ham
et al. 2017 ﬁnds that several migrant education policies seem to improve migrant pupils’
psychological sense of belonging at school. The importance of policy for pupils’ senseof belonging is supported by Veerman 2015’s ﬁnding that more diverse schools are notmore likely to experience higher classroom disruptions under conditions of inclusive
integration policies. Turning to attainment, Ham et al. 2020 ﬁnds that guaranteeing
equal rights can have broad impacts on educational attainment. Van de Werfhorst andHeath 2019 use the best available national surveys to identify positive effects ofinclusive integration policies on the academic attainment of second generation youthof various backgrounds.1 Arikan et al. 2020 focuses on the same migrant group – Turkish
youth – across Europe and ﬁnds that comparing migrant education policies help to
explain the amount of progress in math achievement from the ﬁrst to the second
generation. Van de Werfhorst and Heath 2019 also ﬁnd that inclusive integration policies
offer more equitable chances for youth of various ethnic backgrounds to accessacademic over vocational forms of upper secondary education. Kislev 2016 observes

1. Van de Werfhorst and Heath 2019 suggest that the education situation of ﬁrst-generation youth may be strongly inﬂuenced by
the restrictiveness of migration channels. For example, Schlicht-Schmälzle and Möller 2012 ﬁnd a negative relationship between
family reuniﬁcation policies and math academic achievement among immigrant youth due to selection effects.

23Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomessimilar positive relationships between various policies and immigrants’ chances toattain tertiary education, although results vary for different migrant groups. These
positive relationships suggest that targeted policies can have various positive effects
on speciﬁc children in need who are eligible to beneﬁt.

4.2 LINK BETWEEN MIGRANT EDUCATION POLICIES AND
OTHER INTEGRATION OUTCOMES
Ten additional studies have identiﬁed signiﬁcant relationships between education
policies and other integration outcomes. Echoing Ham et al. 2017’s ﬁndings on
immigrant youth’s sense of belonging at school, Choi and Cha 2019 conclude that
inclusive education policies contribute to a more common sense of patriotic pride
among all youth – ﬁrst generation, second generation and non-immigrants. To a lesser
extent, inclusive education policies may partly contribute to a common sense of trust
in institutions by both the ﬁrst and second generation (Faoro 2016). Moving from more
‘subjective’ to ‘objective’ integration outcomes, Kislev 2017 suggests that positive
relationships exist between inclusive education policies and the labour market integrationof the ﬁrst generation. Similarly, education policies may, to some extent, contribute to thesettlement of immigrant communities; Bilateral migration aspirations (Beine et al. 2019)and ﬂows (Beverelli 2020) appear higher for countries with inclusive education policies,
while onward migration for job opportunities seem to be lower (Guzi et al. 2015).
Interestingly, inclusive education policies do not, at ﬁrst glance, seem related to thelevel of neighbourhood segregation of immigrants in the country (Ambinakudige andLichter 2019).
Future studies could also better match outcomes to the speciﬁc beneﬁciaries of thesepolicies. Most of these 10 studies consider education as one of many integration areas
and thus use more ‘generic’ measurements of the immigrant target group. As such, De
Freitas et al. 2018’s meta-analysis of the limited existing literature was not able toidentify a systematic link between education policies and general levels of
discrimination among immigrants. Signiﬁcant ﬁndings do not emerge from the one
study comparing education policies and health outcomes (Bakhtiari et al. 2018), while
studies of political participation have only looked indirectly at migrant education
policies (Faoro 2016 and Schnyder 2019).

24

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

4.3 MIGRANT EDUCATION POLICIES FACING EGYPTIAN IMMIGRANTS
AROUND THE WORLD
Migrant education policies may be important for the educational pathways andinclusion of ﬁrst and second generation youth from Egyptian families. Comparable dataon these policies are mostly available from democracies in the developed world via
MIPEX (2015) and ICRI (2008), which are presented in Figure 5. Looking at major
destination countries for Egyptian immigrants, migrant education policies are welldeveloped in countries like Australia, Canada and the UK, partially developed incountries like France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands and under-developed incountries like Kuwait and Turkey. MIPEX observes that education policies are generally
more targeted in countries with large numbers of immigrant pupils. Overall, education
is identiﬁed by MIPEX 2015 as one of the greatest weaknesses in the integration policies
of most countries, as education systems are very slow to adapt their policies to thespeciﬁc needs of immigrant pupils.
The two indexes (MIPEX and ICRI) identify several elements of migrant education
policies. MIPEX breaks these policies down into four dimensions– access, targetingneeds, new opportunities and intercultural education – with several indicators
measuring each dimension. ‘Access’ examines whether all children, with or without alegal status, are allowed in law and encouraged in policy to access all levels of
education. MIPEX 2015 identiﬁes wide variation in access to vocational and higher
education for undocumented youth and little targeted support to help all pupils accessthese levels. ‘Targeting needs’ measures to what extent migrant children, parents, andtheir teachers are entitled to have their speciﬁc needs addressed in school, for example
through additional ﬁnancial, training, language and technical support. MIPEX 2015 ﬁnds
that schools have wide discretion and few resources to address these speciﬁc needs.
‘New opportunities’ considers to what extent school practices incorporate immigrantstudents, parents, languages and cultures. The ICRI Indicators on education fall under
this MIPEX dimension by measuring support for religious minority schools and teachersand minority language and cultural teaching. MIPEX 2015 suggests that issues ofimmigrant languages and cultures are more often addressed than issues of school
segregation or diversity in the teaching profession. Lastly, ‘intercultural education’includes various policies and measures to help pupils and teachers to appreciate andlearn about cultural diversity. In terms of international trends, MIPEX 2015 notes that
cultural diversity is often simply a cross-curricular priority, a subject for voluntary25

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomesteacher trainings and a government budget line for ad hoc projects. As a summary of
all these targeted policies, MIPEX sets the following standard for best practice on
migrant education:“Any child living in the country can go from kindergarten to university and achieve
the best she can. She beneﬁts from the same general measures as classmateswith the same socio-economic background. If she has different needs because ofher or her families’ immigration experience, she beneﬁts from additional support.
Her teachers are trained to recognise those needs and set equally high expectations
for her. She is entitled to extra courses and teaching to catch up and master theirlanguage. Her parents play an active role in her education because the school
speciﬁcally involves them at every step of the way. She and her parents also bringnew opportunities to her school. All students can enrol in classes about her
families’ language and culture. Her school uses an intercultural approach in its
curriculum, textbooks, schedule and hiring practices. She, along with all students
and staff, learn how to live and learn in a diverse society.”

Figure 5: Inclusiveness of migrant education policies in selected destination countries
100
83

80

77 76
66 65 65

60
40

62 61 60 60

58 57 57
50 49 4847 47
42 42 4040

38 37 36 36 36

34 33

30

27 26 25 25 2420

23 21 2020

19 19 19 18 17 17

15 15 13

11

SK
IS
JP
RO
PL
MT
BH
MD
RU
LT
LV
HR
HU
AL
MK
TU
BG
KW

GH
SE
AU
NZ
NO
CA
PT
BE
FI
US
EE
UK
KR
NL
DL
LU
AT
DE
CH
AR
IL
SG
CZ
ES
FR
GR
ME
IT
ZA
IE
CY
SI
VE
RS

5 3
0

0

Note: Authors own compilation of MIPEX indicators (2015 in green) and ICRI (2008 inblue including KW). Country names coded to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code.

26

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

5. Migrant health policies

5.1 LINK BETWEEN MIGRANT HEALTH POLICIES AND OUTCOMES
Migrant health policies are now emerging as an area of integration research, withpotentially positive results between policies and outcomes. Migrant health policies were
measured internationally for the ﬁrst time in 2015. Since then, only three have been
published on the potential effects of migrant health policies (Bakhtiari et al. 2018,
Walkden et al. 2018 and Sorbye et al. 2019). Bakhtiari et al. 2018 and Walkden et al.
2018 ﬁnd a strong positive link between migrant health policies, as measured by MIPEX,
and two subjective measures of migrant health: self-reported poor mental or physicalhealth (Bakhtiari et al. 2018) and elderly migrants’ self-reported frailty (Walkden et al.
2018). These two studies suggest that migrant health policies may be most effective
in reducing the social exclusion of particularly vulnerable migrant groups. However,health policies on their own might not be sufficient to guarantee equitable healthoutcomes and full inclusion (Bakhtiari et al. 2018). For example, Sorbye et al. 2019
observes that migrant health policies do not seem to improve the generally lower
birthweight of babies born to migrant mothers. De Freitas et al. 2018’s meta-analysisof the limited available literature was not able to identify a systematic link between
health policies and immigrants’ experiences of discrimination.
These initial results on migrant health policies are conﬁrmed by 11 general MIPEX
studies of the links between integration policies and migrant health. 13 of the 16 links
investigated in these studies were signiﬁcant and positive. Integration policies seem
related to various subjective and objective measures of health: poor self-reported
health (Malmusi 2015, Reus-Pons et al. 2015, Giannoni et al. 2016 and Juarez et al. 2019),
the deleterious health effects of discrimination (Borrell et al. 2015), chronic andlongstanding illness (Giannoni et al. 2016) including diabetes (Reus-Pons et al. 2015),
elderly migrants’ frailty (Walken et al. 2018) and mortality rates (Juarez et al. 2019).
Available studies are more mixed on the link between policies and migrants’ depression
levels (positive in Ikram 2016 and Malmusi et al. 2017 and Andreatou 2019 but none
Levecque and Van Rossem 2015 and Reus-Pons et al. 2015). The conclusions of thesestudies have been compiled and tested in a meta-analysis (Juarez et al. 2019) in The
Lancet, one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals.

27

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and OutcomesThis emerging literature suggests that migrants’ health is affected by a country’s overall
integration policies. These policies determine migrants’ access to all the rights, support
and opportunities that can beneﬁt their physical and mental well-being. Most of thesestudies measure integration policies in terms of the differences between full inclusion(i.e. equal rights and targeted support), assimilation (i.e. equal rights without targeted
support) and exclusion (i.e. limited rights or support). Generally, health outcomes
appear to be most favourable under policies of inclusion and least favourable under
exclusion. A country’s overall approach seems more determinate than any speciﬁc areaof integration policy. For example, no speciﬁc health link seems to exist with country’s
education and labour market mobility policies (Malmusi et al. 2015 and Bakhtiari et al. 2018).
The latter study identiﬁes a negative relationship between health and family reuniﬁcation
policies, given that dependents, particularly adult children or elderly parents, are often
only eligible for reuniﬁcation based on their poor health. The two studies do ﬁnd thatanti-discrimination policies are one area of integration with consistently positive links
to health in terms of poor self-reported health, depression and activity limitations.
These ﬁndings on anti-discrimination are compelling and worthy of further research,
given that these policies aim to guarantee equal access to all services, raise publicawareness and provide a sense of security to discriminated groups.

5.2 MIGRANT HEALTH POLICIES FACING EGYPTIAN IMMIGRANTS
AROUND THE WORLD
Inclusive migrant health and integration policies are fundamental to secure basic healthprotections and inclusion for immigrants regardless of legal status. While health has
been internationally recognised as a basic human right, access to healthcare isregulated through migrant health policies, usually at the national level. MIPEX 2015 is
the only international source with comparative indicators on migrant health policies,
covering most of the developed democracies in the OECD (see Figure 6). Among the
top destinations for Egyptian immigrants included in MIPEX, migrant health policies
are the most developed in Australia, Austria, Italy, the UK and the US. Policies were theleast developed in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey. Generally, migrant health policies aremost developed in countries with inclusive integration policies overall and least
developed in countries with restrictive policies. A core set of MIPEX indicators,
including on migrant health policies, was updated in 2019 in 33 countries (see Figure7). Only 12 countries grant unconditional access to healthcare. In 17 out of the 33
countries, access to healthcare for non-EU immigrants is further undermined byadministrative obstacles, such as documentation and discretion. Targeted healthpromotional measures are also relatively limited for most immigrants. Only 14 out of the
33 countries provided health education materials to all categories of non-EU
immigrants. Similarly, free interpreters are only available in 14 out of the 33 countries.
Worryingly, these four core building blocks – entitlements, administrative procedures,
health education and interpreters – are absent in 11 out of the 33 countries. Thesemigrant health policies are further detailed on the MIPEX website and comparative
report (Ingleby et al. 2019).

28

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Figure 6: Inclusiveness of migrant health policies in selected destination countries75

36

32 31 31

28 27 27 26 26

LT

PL

EE

GR

SK

BG

TU

CY

KR

IS

HU

PT

LU

CZ

DE

MT

RO

CA

JP

FR

DK

FI

BE

ES

IE

NL

SE

AT

ME

IT

UK

NO

US

AU

NZ

0

CH

20

22 22 20

18 18 17 16
15 14

Note: Authors own compilation of MIPEX indicators (2015 in green)

Figure 7: Core policies on migrant inclusion in the health system

AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI

FR GR HR HU IEIS IT LT LU LV MK MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI

SK TR UK

Unconditional inclusion of legally residing migrants in the health system
No administrative discretion and documentation required for legally-residing migrants
to access health system
Health education and promotion available to legally residing migrants, asylum seekers andundocumented migrants
Availability of interpreters (free of charge to patients)

Source: CrossMigration/Migration Policy Group, 2019

29

RS

40 40

AL

45 45 44 43 43 43

40

LV

51 50 49MK

55 53 53 53 53

SI

58

RU

64 64 63 62

HR

67 67 65

60

BH

70 69

MD

80

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

6. Permanent residence policies

6.1 LINK BETWEEN PERMANENT RESIDENCE POLICIES AND OUTCOMES
Similar to family reuniﬁcation, permanent residence policies remain an unexplored areaof integration. Very few studies have seriously examined the potential impact of permanent
residence policies on immigrants’ security of residence, employment or other integration
outcomes. 17 of the 20 recent MIPEX studies of permanent residence policies do notconsider permanent residence as a distinct policy area with its own hypotheses ormeasurements of outcomes. Instead, the 17 studies include permanent residence as
only one of many areas that they try to match to integration outcomes. This lack ofrigour partly may explain the lack of success at identifying signiﬁcant links between
permanent residence policies and outcomes. These studies ﬁnd only eight positive
relationships between permanent residence policies and integration outcomes, threenegative relationships and 15 non-signiﬁcant relationships. This limited study ofpermanent residence policies is likely to persist as permanent residents remain hard to
identify in survey data.
The three speciﬁc MIPEX studies on permanent residence policies (Dewaard 2013,
Corrigan 2015 and Heising et al. 2018) point to the potentially signiﬁcant role of thesepolicies in the integration process. Three of the four links examined emerge assigniﬁcant. Permanent residence policies may inﬂuence immigrants’ settlement andmobility decisions as well as their security of residence and employment. Restrictive
policies can have a ‘selection effect’ by pushing immigrants with precarious statuses
to pursue return or onward migration strategies. For example, Heising et al. 2018’s
analysis of immigrants’ relative retirement income may indicate that restrictive policies
exclude ﬁnancially insecure immigrant households. Whereas inclusive policies may
secure a longer residence duration for a larger share of the immigrant population.
Dewaard 2013’s EU-wide estimations ﬁnd a positive link between permanent residence
policies and immigrants’ expected residence duration in their country of residence. In
other words, immigrants tend to stay longer in countries with more inclusive
permanent residence policies (48 years on average) than in countries with more
restrictive policies (40 years on average). Facilitating permanent residence ornaturalisation can also boost immigrants’ long-term labour market integration in termsof their occupational mobility from more temporary and precarious to more permanentand secure positions (Corrigan 2015). The fact that positive links emerge foroccupational mobility (Corrigan 2015) rather than employment rates (Bisin et al. 2011)30

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomesmay indicate these policies have more long-term than short-term labour market
effects. Notwithstanding these interesting initial results, the small number and sample
sizes of these three studies caution against over-interpretation and call for replication
through wider research.

6.2 LINK BETWEEN PERMANENT RESIDENCE POLICIES AND OTHERINTEGRATION OUTCOMES
Further positive relationships suggest that permanent residence policies may improve
immigrants’ aspirations towards long-term settlement. While permanent residence
policies do not increase migration ﬂows with the destination country (Beverelli 2020),
permanent residence policies, among other policies, may improve the attractiveness ofthe destination country in immigrants’ countries of origin (Beine et al. 2019). Similarly,
Guzi et al. 2015 ﬁnds that permanent residence policies, among others, may encourage
immigrants to settle, rather than move elsewhere for job opportunities.
The remaining evidence is mixed and inconclusive about the links between permanent
residence policies and integration outcomes. Fossati 2010 and 2011 ﬁnds no potential
effects on the education outcomes of immigrant children, while the results are positive
for Schlicht-Schmälzle and Möller 2012 and Dimitrova et al. 2016 in terms of mathachievement and anti-social behaviour. A positive relationship emerges with levels ofsocial trust (Zimdars and Tampubolon 2012 and Faoro 2016), but not with satisfaction
with the quality of life (De Freitas et al. 2018) or of democracy in the country (Faoro
2016). Studies of discrimination and mental health also provide a mixed bag of results:
positive (De Freitas et al. 2018), non-signiﬁcant (André and Dronkers 2016, Bakhtiari etal. 2018 and De Freitas et al. 2018) and even negative (Malmusi et al. 2015). Further
research is required to substantiate any of these claims. Future multivariate analysis ofpermanent residence policies should focus on different immigrant cohorts and thesepolicies’ potential long-term progress over time.

6.3 PERMANENT RESIDENCE POLICIES FACING EGYPTIAN IMMIGRANTS
AROUND THE WORLDPermanent residence policies may be important for the long-term security of residence
and employment of Egyptian immigrants. Comparable data on these policies areavailable from democracies in the developed world via MIPEX (2015) and ICRI (2008),
which are presented in Figure 8. Looking at the major destination countries for
Egyptian immigrants, permanent residence rights are relatively secure in countries like
Canada, Germany and Italy. These policies are more insecure in countries like Australia,
France, the UK and the US. They are highly insecure in countries like Cyprus, Turkey,
Israel and Kuwait. Looking to indexes with a broader geographic scope, a slightly
different index (Ruhs 2009) focused only on the rights of migrant workers on
employment-based schemes. This migrant workers’ index (see results in Ruhs 2011 andFigure 9) found that labour immigration programmes in the Gulf countries and31

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and OutcomesSoutheast Asia place signiﬁcantly more restrictions on the long-term rights of migrant
workers than programmes in Latin America, Europe and North America. Ruhs 2011
identiﬁed the greatest restrictions in terms of residence rights (access to permanent
residence or citizenship) and in terms of social rights, especially unemployment
beneﬁts, retirement beneﬁts and access to public education. These restrictions are
greatest for low and medium-skilled ‘temporary’ worker programmes.
All three of these indexes agree on the common basic elements of a permanent
residence policy. Nearly all categories of temporary residents should have the chance
to apply for a permanent or long-term residence permit after approximately ﬁve yearsof residence in the destination country. The duration of this new permit may bepermanent (unlimited in time) or long-term (i.e. 5-10 years’ validity and renewable).
After acquisition of this permit, permanent or long-term residents usually enjoy greater
protections against expulsion and full and equal access to the destination country’s
labour market and social rights. MIPEX sets the following standard for best practice on
permanent residence policies:“Soon after arrival, any temporary resident has the right to settle permanently
in the country if she secures a basic legal income, obey the law and, if necessary,
improved her language skills through free courses and study materials. For an
applicant, the procedure is short and nearly free, with full rights to appeal.
If accepted, she is secure in her status as a permanent resident and treatedequally as nationals, with the same rights and responsibilities in most areas of life.”
Among national permanent residence systems, MIPEX identiﬁed Italy, Portugal andSpain as examples of good practice of new destination countries that facilitate thepath for their large number of newcomers. Immigrants in these three countries cansecure their situation and will not remain in permanently temporary conditions. Accessto permanent residence does not appear to be a particular problem for speciﬁc
nationality, gender or age groups, since permanent residents generally reﬂect thecountry’s overall immigrant population, and the uptake of long-term residence isrelatively high (MIPEX 2015).

Figure 8: Inclusiveness of permanent residence policies in selected destination countries
100
86

80

79

74 74

71 70 70 69

68 68 67 66

65 65 64 64

60

62 62 61 60

59 59 59 57 57

55 54 54 54 54 54 54 53

52 51 51 51 50

49 49 48
42 42

40

37

33
27 25 25
17

20

Note: Authors own compilation of MIPEX indicators (2015 in green) and ICRI (2008in blue including GH, KW, SG). Country names coded to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code.
32

SG

TU
IL
VE
ZA
GH
KW

UK
MT
IE
RS
FR
BH
MD
CY
RU

MK
CZ
CH

ME
GR
KR
US
AU
LV

AT
RO
NL
SK

DE
JP
AL
LT

IS
CA
SI

HU
BG
PL
IT
HR
NZ
LU

BE
SE
ES
DK
EE
FI
NO
AR
PT

0 0 0

0

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Figure 9: Restrictions on migrant rights by geographic region (Ruhs 2009)

All rights (equ)
1.00
0.75
Family rights

0.50

Political rights
Europe0.25

North America

0.00

Latin America
Southeast Asia
GCC countries

Residence rights

Economic rights

Social rights (equ)Note: All programmes (N=104), 2009. The migrant rights scores range from 0(most restrictive) to 1 (least restrictive)

33

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

7. Political participation policies

7.1

LINK BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTICIPATION POLICIES AND OUTCOMES

Political participation policies seem to have consistently positive effects on the levelsof immigrants’ participation in the public life of their destination country. The link
between integration policies and immigrant political participation has become a majorarea of study of integration. Five speciﬁc MIPEX studies investigated these links among
23,000 immigrants all across Europe. Their ﬁndings are largely conﬁrmed by nine
additional general MIPEX studies surveying 30,000 mostly in Western Europe. Inclusive
integration policies are positively related to the various steps in the process of politicalparticipation for immigrants and the second generation. Thorkelson 2016’s general
study also ﬁnds that one point increase on the overall MIPEX scale is associated witha 40% higher odds of voting in destination country elections, a 30% higher odds ofother forms of conventional participation and a 60% higher odds of unconventional
participation. Aleksynska 2011’s speciﬁc study of political participation policies ﬁnds
that these particular policies are related to higher levels of conventional andunconventional political participation among immigrants from developed countries,
newcomers (≤20 years’ residence) and Muslim immigrants.
Increased participation is also associated with a greater sense of political engagement
and trust in the destination country. Helbling et al. 2015 ﬁnds that inclusive integration
policies help to close the gap between immigrants and non-immigrants in terms not
only of their electoral and non-electoral participation, but also their levels of politicalinterest, trust and efficacy. Welge 2015 conﬁrms more inclusive political participation
policies provide immigrants with a similar sense of political efficacy – i.e. that change
is possible and that their voice can be heard. Whether or not these policies have major
effects on the demographic and substantive representation of immigrants in politics is
unclear; results are sometimes weak or mixed, depending on the country’s overall
political system (Ruedin 2013, Sanhueza Petrarca 2015, Schnyder 2015 and 2019).
Mixed results have also emerged about the effects on integration policies on politicaltransnationalism, which may raise concerns from an origin country’s perspective. The
effects of integration policies on immigrants’ likelihood to participate in the origin
country may be non-existent (Voicu and Comsa 2014 and Ahmadov and Sasse 2016)
or even negative (Chaudhary 2018). More research is required to draw any deﬁnitive
conclusions about the potential effects of destination country policies on origin
country political participation.
34

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

7.2 LINK BETWEEN POLITICAL PARTICIPATION POLICIES AND OTHERINTEGRATION OUTCOMES
Twenty other MIPEX studies investigate the links between political participation policies
and various integration outcomes. Political participation policies are less related tomigration issues than to broader issues of integration and democracy. For example,
these policies have little-to-no relationship with migration ﬂows or aspirations (Guzi etal. 2015, Ambinakudige and Lichter 2019, Beine et al. 2019 and Beverelli 2020).
Instead, policies promoting immigrant political participation may be part of the functioningof highly developed democracies that aim to secure fairness and trust for all residents.
Within the European Union, the development of these policies appears to be particularly
important for non-EU citizens as opposed to mobile EU citizens, who enjoy greater rights
and resources when moving between EU countries (Welge 2015). Inclusive policies help
to close the gap between immigrants and non-immigrants, both in terms of their overallsatisfaction with life and in terms of their demands on politicians in their destination
country (Welge 2015, Faoro 2016 and Just 2017). While immigrants will continue toexperience discrimination, health and other life problems, regardless of the policy inplace (see André and Dronkers 2016, Malmusi et al. 2015, Bakhtiari et al. 2018, De Freitas
et al. 2018), these policies may help immigrants and their allies to defend their common
interests. General MIPEX studies have uncovered strong and positive relationships
between political participation policies and certain integration outcomes in education(Fossati 2010, Fossati 2011, Schlicht-Schmälzle and Möller 2012), employment (Bisin etal. 2011) and health (Bakhtiari et al. 2018). On the one hand, granting equal politicalrights to immigrants helps to reinforce an inclusive political culture, as politicians areforced to be responsive to the needs of all residents – both immigrants and othervulnerable groups in society. For example, Vernby 2013 ﬁnds that the expansion of
noncitizen voting rights in Sweden helped to explain the expansion of equitable social
spending to all disenfranchised local areas, including those with large immigrant
populations. Inclusive political participation policies appear to be associated withhigher levels of trust in society (Zimdars and Tampubolon 2012, Justwan 2015 andMcLaren 2017), lower levels of anti-immigrant prejudice (Callens and Meuleman 2017)and a greater sense of civic rather than ethnic national identity (Sarrasin et al. 2019). On
the other hand, granting equal political rights to immigrants may also contribute to
the wider polarisation of politics in developed democracies and the mobilisation of farright parties, leading to greater contestation over national identity (Sarrasin et al. 2019).
As a result, immigrants have more opportunities and more allies to defend their common
interests in our increasingly divisive democracies.

7.3 POLITICAL PARTICIPATION POLICIES FACING EGYPTIAN IMMIGRANTS
AROUND THE WORLD
Political participation policies seem most relevant for the democratic participation of
those non-EU immigrants who are long-settled in the world’s democracies. The MIPEX2015 study concludes that political participation is a slight area of weakness for
integration policy, as foreign residents in most countries have few opportunities to35

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

inform and improve the policies that affect them daily. Comparable data on thesepolicies are mostly available for developed countries via MIPEX 2015, ICRI 2008 andRuhs 2011, which are presented in Figure 10. Looking at the major destination countries
for Egyptian immigrants, political participation policies are most inclusive in Australia,
Germany and Nordic countries. These policies are more limited in Canada, France, Italy,
the Netherlands, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and the UK. They are highly restricted
in Greece, Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Political rights generally do not vary
between immigration categories or skill-levels (Ruhs 2011). MIPEX concludes thatpolicies in this area are very slow to change over time.
Political participation policies involve a range of targeted rights, opportunities and support
for foreign residents. One of the most reliable indicators of political participation policies
is voting rights for foreign residents. The ﬁrst overview of the global right to vote for
immigrants (Pedroza 2019, not accessible by the author) identiﬁed 94 countries extending
some form of voting rights to immigrants. 55% of these countries have sizeable foreign
populations. The most comprehensive overview available to the public covers 53 countries
in Europe and the Americas (Arrighi and Bauböck 2017). However, the global list of
countries extending voting rights for foreign residents does not include any of the top
20 destination countries for Egyptian immigrants. The one exception is the UK whereEgyptian immigrants cannot enjoy the voting rights which are only open to citizens ofCommonwealth countries. On average, the voting rights extended to foreign residents
are limited to the local right to vote (and not the right to stand as a local candidate).
Only four countries worldwide extend the national right to vote to foreign residents:
Chile, Malawi, New Zealand and Uruguay. The MIPEX 2015 study observes that voting
rights are generally secure but hard to obtain, with ongoing debates for decades (seeFigure 11 that highlights ongoing debates in Canada, France, Luxembourg and US).
In addition to voting rights, the three main indexes identify other common basic
elements of political participation policies. Voting rights are the least common policy
extended to foreign residents compared to other types of policies. The most common
policy is the extension of equal civic rights, such as the right to join or form trade unions
and associations. The right to join political parties is sometimes restricted in newer
countries of destination. Beyond civic and political rights, national and local consultative
bodies have been created across a wide range of countries, but usually on an ad hoc basis.
The MIPEX 2015 study ﬁnds that these bodies tend to be weak, government-led and too
poorly funded to engage immigrants. Despite their weaknesses, these existing consultative
bodies around the world represent opportunities for organisations of Egyptian immigrants
to defend their interests. Reviewing all these policies, MIPEX 2015 sets the following
standard for best practice on political participation:“When states open political opportunities, all residents can participate indemocratic life. A newcomer enjoys the same civil liberties as national citizens.
After a limited number of years of legal residence, she can stand in local electionsand vote in local, regional and even national elections. She can be elected andeven lead a strong and independent immigrant consultative body in her
community, region, or for the whole country. The state informs her of her politicalrights and supports the emergence of immigrant civil society.”36

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Figure 10: Inclusiveness of political participation policies in selected destination countries
100
82

81

80

80 79
74 74

73

71

70 70

67

64 64 63

60 60

58 58

60

57

54 54

53 52

51

50 50 50

48
40 40 40 40

38

AE DO

GH MY

AT

0

0

40

20

0

40

NO

LU

CO

FI

PT

NZ

IE

SE

HK

31

30 30 30 30 30

AG

IS

AU

DK

DE

BZ MX

CH

IT

BE

ES

KR

FR

NL

13

13

UK CN OM

TH

CA

6

6

5

PL

RS ME

36 35 3530

25 25 25

23 23

21

21

20

20 20
16

16
13

13

10

11

9

0
US

VE ZA

JP

AR

GR

ID

SA

SG

AL

CY MT HU

SI

EE CZ

IL

TW

LT

SK

BG

HR LV

MK

TU RU

0

0

BH KW MD RO

Note: Authors own compilation of MIPEX indicators (2015 in green), ICRI (2008 in blue
including KW) and Ruhs (2009 in purple). Country names coded to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code.

37Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Figure 11: Global history of political debates over voting rights for immigrants
DEBATES ON DENIZEN ENFRANCHISEMENT OVER TIME

All denizens
can vote at
national level

Some denizens
can vote at
national level

All denizens
can vote at
local level

Some denizens
can vote at
local level

1945

Enfranchisement
reform failed

Discussed
enfranchisement
at local level

Some denizens
can vote at
local level

All denizens
can vote at
national level

All denizens
can vote at
local level

Debates on denizen enfranchisement inpolitics where 3% or more of the resident
population are resident migrants.

Some denizens
can vote at
national level

Debates on denizen enfranchisement inpolitics with very low proportions ofresident migrants. (less than 3%)

UK

1950
Uruguay

1955

1960

Ireland1965
Mauritius

1970
BrazilBelgium

PortugalUK

1975

SwedenDenmark
NorwayChile

1980
BelizeFranceFinland
Australia
Portugal

Venezuela

1990

Barbados

Germany

Spain
CapeV

Chile

Hungary
Lithuania

Bolivia

IrelandFinland
US: DC
Estonia
US: various
counties

1995
CapeV

Venezuela

Denmark

Can: BC
Netherlands
Iceland
Ger: Ham
Ger: Sch-H
Ger: Bremen
W. Berlin

Columbia
Grenada B Faso
Argentina: BA
GuvanaBrazil

Swi-Jura

Norway1985

MalawiNZ

Can: Tor

2000

Italy

US: MA

FranceJapan
Austria

Antigua &BarbudaDominica

Slovenia
Slovakia

US: DC

2005

Portugal

Iceland
Swi: Apenzol
Swi: Fribourg
Luxembourg
Swe: Gr, Wa
Belgium

US: NY, TX, MI, MN
France2010

Can: Toronto

Note: Pedroza 201538

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

8. Naturalisation policies

8.1 LINK BETWEEN NATURALISATION POLICIES AND OUTCOMES
Naturalisation policies have consistently strong and positive effects on immigrants’chances to acquire the nationality of the destination country, based on six MIPEX
studies surveying 30,000 immigrants in Western Europe. Traditionally, citizenship has
been one of the best-studied areas of integration policy. From this research,
naturalisation policies emerge as one of the strongest determining factors behindnaturalisation rates for ﬁrst generation immigrants, both from developing countries(Dronkers and Vink 2012, Vink et al. 2013, Hoxhaj et al. 2019, Huddleston and Falcke2020) as well as from other EU countries (Alarian 2017). For immigrants fromdeveloping countries, a one-percentage-point increase on the MIPEX 100-point scalefor ‘Access to Nationality’ policies should translate to an increase in naturalisation rates
by around 2.3-2.4 percent (Vink et al. 2013 and Huddleston and Falcke 2020) and up
to 3.5% for those with 5-20 years of residence (Dronkers and Vink 2012). The policies
with the greatest effects on naturalisation seem to be the dual nationality policies ofthe origin and destination country (Reichel 2011, Vink et al. 2013, Stadlmair 2017,
Huddleston and Falcke 2020), birthright citizenship for the second and third
generation (Stadlmair 2017) and the restrictiveness of the legal and procedural
requirements (Stadlmair 2017, Huddleston 2020).

8.2 LINK BETWEEN NATURALISATION POLICIES AND OTHERINTEGRATION OUTCOMES
Results are mixed from the 30 other MIPEX studies comparing naturalisation policies
with other integration outcomes. Naturalisation policies do not seem directly related
to immigrants’ experiences of discrimination (André and Dronkers 2016 and De Freitas
et al. 2018) or health outcomes (Malmusi et al. 2015 and Bakhtiari et al. 2018). Nor donaturalisation policies for ﬁrst generation adults seem related to the educational
outcomes of their children, although one of the four available studies (Fossati 2010)
does ﬁnd a negligible effect.

39

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

In terms of subjective integration, facilitating naturalisation policies is strongly andpositively linked to the development of a common sense of belonging and trust between
immigrants and the general public. 19 relationships between attitudes and naturalisation
policies have been investigated in 12 MIPEX studies; 14 of these 17 relationships are positive
and 10 were strongly signiﬁcant. Facilitating naturalisation policies are associated withhigher levels of social trust in the country (Zimdars and Tampubolon 2012, Faoro 2016
and McLaren 2017), more inclusive national identities (Ariely 2012 and Sarrasin et al. 2019)and lower levels of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiments (Ariely 2012, Kaya 2017).
Facilitating naturalisation may also have a small effect on boosting immigrants’ civic
participation (slightly positive in Hunger 2018 but no relationship in Aleksynska 2011).
Naturalisation policies also seem to impact immigrants’ ‘citizenship premium’ in terms of
the boost to their integration outcomes post-naturalisation. Employment outcomes
have been the main focus of national and international studies of naturalisation, which
regularly ﬁnd that naturalised immigrants beneﬁt from higher employment rates (Liebig
and Von Haaren 2011). Researchers investigating the citizenship premium has started toconsider whether policies facilitating naturalisation also make it easier for immigrants
to ﬁnd employment. Bisin et al. 2011 found that naturalisation policies had no effect on thesize of this citizenship premium, which means that naturalisation boosts employment rates,
regardless of the policy in place. Two later studies (Prokic-Breuer et al. 2012 and Hoxhaj
et al. 2019) reveal a signiﬁcant positive relationship between naturalisation policies andemployment rates for immigrants from developing countries, especially for women(Hoxhaj et al, 2019). This citizenship premium may extend from levels of employment
to levels of language ﬂuency. Language acquisition seems positively related to facilitatednaturalisation policies for all immigrant groups, except for refugees, who tend to beneﬁt
from policy exemptions due to their speciﬁc vulnerabilities (Zwysen and Demireva 2020).
Despite this initial boost, naturalisation policies may not necessarily help employed
immigrants to further improve their job quality and economic mobility. The evidenceis mixed from the four available studies. Facilitating naturalisation or permanent residence
may unlock immigrants’ occupational mobility (Corrigan 2015). Naturalisation may also
have positive effects to get immigrant women out of gender-segregated occupations(Palencia-Esteban 2019). But for immigrant men, facilitating naturalisation may have noor, even negative, effects on their occupational mobility (Hoxhaj et al. 2019). One potential
explanation for this from Guzi et al. 2015 is that facilitating naturalisation encourages
immigrants, especially male heads of households, to settle in their chosen destinationand thus decreases their geographical mobility and their willingness to move to otherregions or countries in pursuit of greater job opportunities.

40

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Similarly, naturalisation policies may facilitate immigrants’ mobility in diverse ways. This link
between nationality acquisition and mobility is an emerging topic with limited research
to date. Ambinakudige and Lichter 2019’s ﬁndings suggest that facilitating naturalisation
may help naturalised immigrants to improve their housing situation and move out ofsegregated neighbourhoods. Facilitating naturalisation may also facilitate circularity
by increasing the aspirations or ability of immigrants and their families to move
between their country of residence and origin (Beine et al. 2019 and Beverelli 2020).

8.3 NATURALISATION POLICIES FACING EGYPTIAN IMMIGRANTS
AROUND THE WORLD
MIPEX observes that nationality acquisition policies remain a major area of weakness
for most destination countries. The highly discretionary and costly path to citizenshipoften discourages rather than encourages immigrants to apply and succeed as new
citizens. A few countries have not caught up with international reform trends on dual
nationality and birthright entitlements for children. MIPEX set the following standard
for best practice based on existing national policies:“All settled residents who see their future in the country get full support tobecome citizens and equally participate in public life. All citizens can be dual
nationals. A child born in the country to immigrant parents becomes a citizen atbirth (jus soli) like all other children. Someone born abroad has become attachedto the country after living there for 5 years. She is entitled to the nationality when
she meets the legal conditions, such as having no recent criminal record. The
requirement to pass the basic language test and a citizenship course encourages
her to succeed through free, ﬂexible and professional courses and tests. As a new
citizen, she has the same citizenship protections as her fellow nationals.”
Given the importance of naturalisation policies for citizenship and belonging and theirpotential for employment and mobility, Egyptian immigrants could beneﬁt fromnaturalisation reforms in their destination countries, particularly reforms of dual nationality
and residence requirements. Indicators of naturalisation policies demonstrate a wide
range of policies around the world (see Figure 12).
These indicators of naturalisation policies are aggregations of several key policy elements.

41

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

8.3.1 Dual Nationality
Dual nationality seems to function as a precondition in immigrants’ decision-making on
naturalisation. Whether or not dual nationality is allowed strongly determines immigrants’interest to acquire the nationality of their destination country (see Huddleston and Falcke
2019 and Huddleston 2020). The acceptance of dual nationality is a major policy trend
in destination and origin countries, although major variations persist in the diffusion ofthis norm across world regions (Vink et al. 2019). The availability of dual nationality ismonitored by Maastricht University’s MACIMIDE Global Expatriate Dual Citizenshipdataset (see Figure 13). For example, Egyptian immigrants still face restrictions in a few
major destination countries (e.g. Kuwait, UAE, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands).

8.3.2 Residence Requirements
For most Egyptian immigrants, the greatest obstacle to naturalisation is the very longresidence duration requirement in the largest destination countries for Egyptian
immigrants. In Europe, the European Convention on Nationality (1997) of the Councilof Europe has limited the maximum residence duration requirement to 10 years. The
majority of destination countries around the world, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia,
are in line with this 10-year maximum (see Figure 14). This maximum is exceeded inhalf of the countries in Africa and Asia, including the major destination countries for
Egyptian immigrants (see Figure 15): UAE (30 years), Bahrain (25), Qatar (25), Kuwait(20), Oman (20) and Lebanon (ordinary naturalisation not allowed). The very longresidence requirements in these Arabic-speaking countries effectively bar mostEgyptian immigrants who reside there and would otherwise be able to meet thelanguage, work and good character requirements.

8.3.3 Birthright CitizenshipFor children born abroad to Egyptian immigrants, birthright citizenship is fully available
in the Americas, restricted in Western Europe and unavailable in most other countries
around the world. These policies are monitored by the Global Birthright Indicators of
the Global Citizenship Observatory (GLOBALCIT) of the European University Institute(see Figure 16).

42

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Figure 12: Inclusiveness of naturalisation policies in selected destination countries
100
88

80

86
79
73 72 71

69 69 69 68 67

66

63 61 6160

60 59 58

56

53 52

50 50 49 48

46 45
41 4040 39 39 39

40

37 37 36

35 34 34 34 34

31 31 31
26 25
21

20

18 17

Note: Authors own compilation of MIPEX indicators (2015 in green) and ICRI (2008 inblue including SG, IL and KW). Country names coded to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code.

43

SG
IL
KW

GR
MT
RO
HR
HU
CH
AT
SK
BG
EE
LV

JP
CY
KR
LT
TU

RU
MK
RS
BH
MD

UK
IE
DK
PL
IS
NO
IT
ZA
CZ
ES
GH
ME
SI

VE
PT
AR
SE
DE
NZ
AU
AL
BE
LU
CA
NL
FI
US
FR

0 0 0

0

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Figure 13: Dual nationality policies (2016)

47.4%

EUROPE

AFRICANORTHERN AMERICA& THE CARIBBEANCountries
accepting dual
citizenship forboth immigrants
and emigrants

18.3%

Countries that do
not accept dual
citizenship for
either immigrants
or emigrants

15.4%

Countries
accepting dual
citizenship only
for immigrants

LATIN AMERICA

18.9%

Countries
accepting dual
citizenship only
for emigrants

WESTERN, CENTRALSOUTHERN & EASTERNASIASOUTH EASTERN ASIA & OCEANIA

Dual citizenship for both
Dual citizenship for neither
Dual citizenship for immigrants
Dual citizenship for emigrantUnknown

Source: IOM GMDAC 2019 using GLOBALCIT 201744

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Figure 14: Ordinary naturalisation requirements around the worldWorld

AfricaAmericas

Asia/
Oceania

EuropeAfter 5 or fewer years

48%

36%

66%

51%

45%

After 6 to 9 years

18%

13%

29%

2%

33%

After 10 to 12 years

22%

38%

3%

18%

21%

After 15 years / no or
discriminatory provision

12%

13%

3%

29%

0%

Dual citizenship for
immigrants

64%

70%

71%

62%

52%

Economic Requirement

53%

43%

37%

67%

64%

Yes

60%

57%

69%

31%

88%

No special provision

13%

0%

17%

27%

12%

Discriminatory provision

27%

43%

14%

42%

0%

Fast track for culturalaffinity

23%

13%

14%

18%

48%

Number of countries

175

53

35

45

42

RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTSPOUSAL TRANSFER

45

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Figure 15: Ordinary naturalisation in selected major Egyptian destination countries

Bahrain

BAH 6(1a)Naturalisation(discretionary)

Person has been resident in Bahrain for at least
25 years. Other conditions: speak Arabic, havegood character, and own real estate.

KuwaitKUW 4(1)Naturalisation(discretionary)

Person has lived in Kuwait for a minumum of 20
years. Other conditions: ﬂuent in Arabic, has anincome, good character, holds a qualiﬁcationneeded in a country (such as a degree for aprofession), and is Muslim.

LebanonNo
provision

Not allowed

Not allowed

Oman

OMA 15Naturalisation(discretionary)

Person has been resident in Oman for at least
20 years. Other conditions: can read and write
Arabic, has an income, good character and ofphysical health, written consent to renounce
citizenship of another country.

Qatar

QAT 2(1)Naturalisation(discretionary)

Person has been resident in the country for atleast 25 years. Other conditions: proﬁcient inArabic, has an income, good character and has
physical health.

Saudi
ArabiaSAU 9Naturalisation(discretionary)

Person has had a permanent resident permit(kiqama) inside the kingdom for 5 years
continuously as a minimum.
Other conditions: is above legal age, no mental
illness, good behaviour, no criminal record of
more than 6 months imprisonment, legal income.
The decision is made based on an additional listof requirements by a Committee of the Executive
Regulation of the Saudi Citizenship System asfeatured in the citizenship law. Under article
20 of the citizenship law, the residency period will
be reset if the applicant after ﬁling his application
left the kingdom for more than 12 months using
his existing passport, or if before ﬁling his
application they left the kingdom for morethan 6 months.

UnitedArab
Emirates

UAE 8

Naturalisation(discretionary)

Person has been resident in the UAE for at least
30 years. Other conditions: proﬁcient in Arabic,
has an income and good character.

GLOBALCIT (2017). Global Database on Modes of Acquisition of Citizenship, version 1.0.
San Domenico di Fiesole: Global Citizenship Observatory / Robert Schuman Centre forAdvanced Studies / European University Institute. Available at:
http://globalcit.eu/acquisition-citizenship/46

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Figure 16: Global birthright indicators (2016)

PLEASE CLARIFY
COLOUR LEGENDFOR THIS MAP

GLOBALCIT (2019). Global Birthright Indicators. San Domenico di Fiesole: European
University Institute.
Note: These indicators are part of http://globalcit.eu. They measure the inclusiveness ofbirthright citizenship provisions across 177 countries.

47

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

9. Anti-discrimination policies

9.1 LINK BETWEEN ANTI-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES AND OUTCOMES
The relationship between anti-discrimination policies and the process of discriminationis still relatively new and limited to only 11 MIPEX studies. No systematic link emerges
between the overall strength of anti-discrimination policies, as measured by MIPEX,
and the level of discrimination towards immigrants (Ziller 2014, André and Dronkers
2016, Callens and Meuleman 2017, Kislev 2018, Kislev 2019). Some positive, but limited,effects are observed for speciﬁc policies, such as clear deﬁnitions in law, enforcement
mechanisms and, to some extent, equality policies and bodies (Kislev 2018 and 2019).
Kislev ﬁnds that these positive beneﬁts are most apparent for long-settled ﬁrst- andsecond-generation, especially those from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).
Anti-discrimination practitioners will not be surprised by the ﬁnding that laws andpolicies may not directly affect the perceived level of discrimination in society.
Discrimination is a reality in all societies, regardless of public attitudes and the policies
in place. Anti-discrimination policies are not able or intended to eliminate
discrimination, despite the sometimes-lofty rhetoric to the contrary. As with othercrimes and areas of the law, anti-discrimination policies secure greater publicawareness of discrimination and greater access to justice for potential victims.
Rather than a simple straightforward link between policies and discrimination, the work ofConrad Ziller illustrates the long-term process that changing policies can have on changing
public attitudes, awareness, trust and reporting on discrimination. People in countries
with stronger anti-discrimination policies are more likely to be aware of discrimination
as a problem and know their rights (Ziller 2014). In contrast, people in countries withweaker policies are less likely to know their rights or agree that discrimination is aproblem in society. The difference in knowledge of rights between the countries withthe lowest- and highest-scoring policies is 11 percentage points. While people
experience discrimination in all types of countries and ethnic minorities are likely toidentify as discriminated groups, greater knowledge of rights is associated over timewith higher reporting of witnessing discrimination and lower levels of identiﬁcation as
discriminated minority groups.

48

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

The potential reason for this change in reporting and identiﬁcation over time could be
immigrants’ growing levels of trust under these supportive conditions. Under strong
policies, immigrants who experience discrimination no longer seem to feel the sameloss of trust in public institutions that other immigrants do in countries with weakpolicies (Ziller and Helbling 2019). This increase in immigrant trust does not necessarily
extend to all types of institutions (Ziller 2019 and Ziller and Helbling 2019). Stronger
policies appear associated with greater levels of immigrant trust in the police and legal
system (Röder and Mühlau 2012) and a more shared sense of social trust (Zimdars andTampubolon 2012 and Ziller 2017) and satisfaction with democracy (Ziller and Helbling2019). Erisen 2017 even ﬁnds that stronger policies increase immigrants’ likelihood to
identify as Europeans and as national citizens of the country. This increase in trust isoften most apparent among the second generation, who were fully socialised to thecountry’s policies and norms (Faoro 2016).

9.2 LINK BETWEEN ANTI-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES AND OTHERINTEGRATION OUTCOMES
This stronger sense of social trust and belonging may explain why anti-discrimination
policies are linked with positive health outcomes for immigrants. De Freitas et al. 2018’s
meta-analysis suggests that strong anti-discrimination policies decrease the likelihoodthat a person who experiences discrimination will fall into depression. In contrast,
immigrants are at greater risk of depression in countries with weak policies (Malmusi
et al. 2015). They are also more likely to experience poor health and report healthlimitations that impact their daily life (Bakhtiari et al. 2018).
The impact of anti-discrimination policies is harder to observe in other areas of integration.
Most of the 23 MIPEX studies available are not the best for studying this relationship as
they only consider anti-discrimination policies as one integration policy among many,
without a speciﬁc methodology targeting discriminated groups. Looking at the different
areas of integration, the latest available discrimination study (EU MIDIS II, FRA 2017)
ﬁnds that respondents of North African background in Western Europe experienced
discrimination in the past year in public or private services (21%), looking for work(15%), at work (14%) and least likely in housing (9%) and health (3%). Reviewing thepolicy research in these areas, no study has focused on access to services. Whenlooking for work, anti-discrimination policies have unclear effects on activity rates(Kesler 2016 and Kislev 2017) and no effects on overall unemployment or employment
rates for all immigrants (Bisin et al. 2011, Lessard-Phillips et al. 2012, Patacchini et al. 2015,
Kislev 2017, Kislev 2019). Yet studies focusing on speciﬁc policies and discriminatedgroups may show better results. Patacchini et al. 2015 demonstrate that employment
rates for self-identiﬁed Muslim men and women can be related to strong enforcement
mechanisms and equality policies. At work, anti-discrimination policies seem to haveclearer positive effects for working immigrants. Effects have been recorded in terms ofimmigrants’ income (Kislev 2019), occupational status (Platt et al. ongoing), qualiﬁcations

49

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

for their job (Aleksynska and Tritah 2013) and ability to relocate for job opportunities(Guzi et al. 2015) or other purposes (Beverelli 2020). One example of these effects atwork: the likelihood that immigrants are overqualiﬁed for their job is 42% lower whencomparing the European countries with the strongest and weakest policies. Again, allthese effects seem to differ for different types of policies (Kislev 2019) and for different
groups and genders (Patacchini et al. 2015, Palencia-Esteban 2019, Platt et al. ongoing).
Beyond employment, other areas do not reveal overall effects for all immigrants, basedon the four general MIPEX studies on education (Fossati 2010, Fossati 2011, SchlichtSchmälzle and Möller 2012, Dimitrova et al. 2016), three on political participation(Aleksynska 2011, Raschke and Westle 2018 and Schnyder 2019) and one study on
housing segregation (Ambinakudige and Lichter 2019).

9.3 ANTI-DISCRIMINATION POLICIES FACING EGYPTIAN IMMIGRANTS
AROUND THE WORLD
Strong anti-discrimination policies, especially enforcement mechanisms and equality
policies, seem essential for securing the rights and trust of Egyptian immigrant men
and women who are potential victims of ethnic, religious or nationality discrimination.
The EU-MIDIS II (FRA 2017) survey in the EU illustrates how discrimination acts as aregular obstacle for a sizeable share of North African immigrants. MIPEX studies
conﬁrm that anti-discrimination policies may be particularly useful for the ﬁrst andsecond generation from the MENA region, particularly of Muslim family background.
Comparable data on these policies are mostly available for developed countries via
MIPEX (2015) and ICRI (2008), which are presented in Figure 17. Looking at the major
destination countries for Egyptian immigrants, anti-discrimination policies are strongest
in countries like Canada, the UK and the US. These policies are only partially developed incountries like Austria, Germany, Greece, Israel and Italy. They are weak in countries like
Israel, Kuwait, Switzerland and Turkey. Victims are best supported in traditional Englishspeaking destinations and a few Western European countries with longstanding legislation,such as Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK.
The two indexes identify core elements of anti-discrimination policy. Explicit legislationand speciﬁc enforcement procedures must exist in criminal and civil law and conformto international standards, such as the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This set of legislation and procedures must explicitly
apply beyond racial discrimination to ethnic, religious and nationality discrimination in
all areas of life. Independent equality bodies must be able to assist, advise andrepresent potential victims, also in accordance with the international ‘Paris Principles’
for National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs).
The major gaps identiﬁed by MIPEX 2015 are, on the one hand, the relative newness
and public ignorance of this legislation, jurisprudence and support bodies and, on theother hand, the weakness of the existing equality bodies and policies. Limited statecommitments and resources for equality bodies and policies mean that most victims

50Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

are too poorly informed or supported to even report their complaint, which represents
the ﬁrst step in the long path to justice. More in-depth country-by-country information
is available through the UN reporting mechanisms (under ICERD, the Paris Principles
and the UN Human Rights Committee). In Europe, more detailed information on law
and practice is available through the European Equality Law Network and the Councilof Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). Summarising
policies found around the world, MIPEX sets the following standard for best practiceon anti-discrimination policies:“All residents, whatever their background, can ﬁght discrimination and beneﬁt
from equal opportunities. Anyone in the country can bring forward a case against
all forms of discrimination, as well as racial proﬁling and incitements to hatred.
These are illegal in all areas of public life – from employment to education, public
space, housing and social protection. A victim is empowered to seek justicebecause laws are well enforced and used. Independent equality bodies and NGOs
help her throughout the proceedings. Courts use wide-ranging sanctions toprevent, discourage and correct discrimination, while the state adopts positive
duties and actions.”

Figure 17: Inclusiveness of anti-discrimination policies in selected destination countries
100

92

90 89 88

86 85 85

83 81

80

79 78 78

77 77 77 76

74 73

72 71 71

70

67 66

63

61 61 60

60

59 58

57
52 52 51

50 50 49 49

48
44 43

40

34

32 31 31
26 25

22

20

20 19

Note: Authors own compilation of MIPEX indicators (2015 in green and ICRI (2008 inblue). Country names coded to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code.

51

IS

KW

RU
SG

VE
JP

GH
CH
TU

LT

LV
EE

CZ
ZA

CY
LU
ES

DK

AT
PL
KR
MT

NO
DE

HR
GR

IL

IT

AL
SI
IE

BH

MD

NL
SK

MK
RS
AU

FR
FI

AR
NZ
BE
RO

SE
HU

PT

ME
UK

US
BG

0

CA

6 5

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Conclusions

T

he links between integration policies and outcomes worldwide are starting to emerge
from the growing international literature, with at least 128 robust multivariate studies
over the past decade. This literature review focused on analysis of the Migrant

Integration Policy Index, as the most comprehensive, reliable and cited index of integration
policy indicators. The report reveals where research gaps still exist and illustrates why andhow studies should better match different policies to the speciﬁc beneﬁciaries and outcomesthat each policy aims to address. These methodological deﬁciencies explain many of theresearch gaps in speciﬁc policy areas, such as labour market mobility, education, family
reuniﬁcation and permanent residence. As most integration policy and outcome indicators
focus on the situation for all immigrants, these conclusions are generally applicable to thesituation in developed countries for the ﬁrst and second generation from non-European
countries. Summarising the recurring trends from all these studies, this report provides
preliminary conclusions as to the potential effects of integration policies and outcomes. The
report also highlighted any research results that were speciﬁc to the situation of immigrants
from the MENA region or Muslim family backgrounds.
Key ﬁndings were identiﬁed for each area of integration policy:
A country’s overall approach to integration policy is strongly associated withpublic and immigrants’ attitudes and identities as well as to immigrants’ wellbeing, political participation and several other socio-economic outcomes.
A combination of labour market mobility policies may help Egyptian migrant
workers to invest in their skills, employment quality and long-term careers.
Family reuniﬁcation policies may be critical to secure the family life and wellbeing of the limited number of Egyptian immigrants separated from dependent
family members.
Migrant education policies may be important for the educational pathways andinclusion of ﬁrst and second generation youth from Egyptian families.
Inclusive migrant health and integration policies are fundamental to secure basic
health protections and inclusion for all Egyptian immigrants, regardless of legal status.
Permanent residence policies can shape the long-term security of residence andemployment for Egyptian immigrants.
Political participation policies seem most relevant for the democratic participationof Egyptian immigrants who are long-settled in the world’s democracies.

52

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Naturalisation policies are the major determinant of access to nationality for ﬁrst
generation Egyptian immigrants and may boost their belonging, employment andsettlement.
Strong anti-discrimination policies, especially enforcement mechanisms and equality
policies, seem essential for securing the rights and trust of Egyptian men andwomen who are potential victims of ethnic, religious and nationality discrimination.
The integration policies facing Egyptian immigrants around the world were summarised
based on the available comparable policy indexes. These indexes are uneven in their thematic
coverage of integration policy areas and limited in their geographical coverage to the world’s
developed democracies. Currently, comparable integration policy indicators are missing formany of the main destination countries for Egyptian immigrants, particularly in the MENA
region. These gaps in the global state-of-the-art on integration policy indicators is one reason
why initial drafts of the UN Global Compact on Migration promoted participation of all statesin the Migrant Integration Policy Index, as a means to identify challenges and best practices.
Drawing on the available data and international policy trends, the report proposes thefollowing recommendations for Egyptian policymakers and stakeholders to promote theinterests of Egyptians abroad and contribute to the development of integration policies intheir main destination countries:
Encourage the development of an overall integration strategy and action plan ineach major destination country for Egyptian immigrants;
Facilitate bilateral or multilateral exchange of good practice and models for policy
development with major destination countries in the MENA region;
Advocate for more accessible enforcement mechanisms, more ambitious equality
policies and better resourced equality bodies to assist victims of racial, ethnic,
religious and nationality discrimination;
Ensure full inclusion of all Egyptian immigrants, with or without legal status, into
the health system of their destination country and facilitate targeted information
about healthcare access and critical health information;
Advocate for greater support for self-organisations of immigrants from Egypt andthe MENA region to promote greater civic participation at destination, origin andinternational level;
Advocate for greater funding and access for qualiﬁcation recognition procedures,professional training, higher education and long-term language courses for
migrant workers;
Gather and report on difficulties of Egyptians abroad to obtain permits for work,
family reuniﬁcation and permanent residence in speciﬁc destination countries andadvocate for related changes in their national laws and procedures;
Encourage intercultural education, multilingualism and inclusive education models
to be promoted through international institutions and exchanges;
Discuss models within the MENA region for facilitated modes for nationality
acquisition, to facilitate the dual nationality and residence requirements for
Arabic-speaking immigrants who meet all other naturalisation requirements.

53

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

List of key international references
Arrighi, J.T. and Bauböck, R. (2017), “A multilevel puzzle: Migrants’ voting rights in national and local
elections,” European Journal of Political Research, 56: 619-639. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12176
Bauböck, R. et al. (2018), How Citizenship Laws Differ: A Global Comparison, Delmi-GLOBALCIT
Policy Brief, Malmö, Sweden.
Bilgili, O. (2015), “Evaluating Impact: Lessons Learned from Robust Evaluations of Labour Market
Integration Policies,” CIDOB and Migration Policy Group, Barcelona and Brussels.
Bilgili, O., Huddleston, T. and Joki, A. (2015), “The Dynamics between integration policies andoutcomes: A Synthesis of the literature”, CIDOB and MPG, Barcelona.
Butschek, S. and Walter, T. (2014), “What active labour market programmes work for immigrants in
Europe? A meta-analysis of the evaluation literature.” IZA J Migration 3, 48.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40176-014-0023-6
FRA (2017), Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey Main results, EU Agency for
Fundamental Rights, Vienna, Austria.
Huddleston, T. (2011), “Consulting immigrants to improve national policies,” European Economic andSocial Committee, Brussels.
Huddleston, T. et al (2015), Migrant Integration Policy Index: 2015, CIDOB and MPG, Barcelona.
Huddleston, T. (2020), “Naturalisation in context: how nationality laws and procedures shape
immigrants’ interest and ability to acquire nationality in six European countries,” Comparative
Migration Studies.
Huddleston, T. and Falcke, S. (2020), “Nationality policies on the books and in practice: Laws andprocedures matter, but for Whom?” International Migration.
Ingleby, D., Petrova-Benedict, R., Huddleston, T. and Sanchez, E. (2019), “The MIPEX Health strand: alongitudinal, mixed-methods survey of policies on migrant health in 38 countries,” European Journalof Public Health (2019, 29: 3). 458-462.
Liebig, T. and Huddleston, T. (2015) “Labour market integration of immigrants and their children:
Developing, Activating and Using Skills” in International Migration Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Liebig, T. and Von Haaren, F. (2011), “Nationality and the socioeconomic integration of immigrants andtheir children,” in Liebig, T. and von Haaren, F. eds. Naturalisation: A Passport for the Better
Integration of Immigrants? OECD, Paris, 23–57.
Marie-Sophie Callens (2015), “Integration policies and public opinion: in conﬂict or in harmony?”
LISER Working Paper 2015-02, Luxembourg.
OECD (2012), “Immigrant Students’ Age at Arrival and Assessment Results,” In: Untapped skills:
Realising the potential of immigrant students, OECD Publishing, Paris, France.
OECD (2017a), Making Integration Work: Family Migrants, OECD Publishing, Paris, France.
OECD (2017b), “A Portrait of Family Migration in OECD countries,” In: International Migration Outlook:
2017, OECD Publishing, Paris, France.
OECD (2019), “Chapter 4. Family ties: How family reuniﬁcation can impact migrant integration,” In:International Migration Outlook: 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris, France.
Pedroza, L. (2015), “The Democratic Potential of Enfranchising Resident Migrants,” In: International
Migration, 53: 22-35. doi:10.1111/imig.12162
Pedroza, L. (2019). Citizenship Beyond Nationality. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. doi:
https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812296068

54

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Reichel, D. (2011), “Do legal regulations hinder naturalisation? Nationality policies and naturalisation rates
in Europe,” EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2011/51, GlobalCit, European University Institute, Florence, Italy.
Ruhs, M. (2011), “Openness, Skills and Rights: An empirical analysis of labour immigration programmesin 46 high- and middle- income countries,” Working Paper WP-11-88 Centre on Migration, Policy andSociety Working Paper, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Vernby, K. (2013), Inclusion and Public Policy: Evidence from Sweden’s Introduction of Noncitizen
Suffrage. American Journal of Political Science, 57: 15-29. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00612.x
Vink, M. et al. (2019), “The International diffusion of expatriate dual citizenship,” Migration Studies.

55

Exploring the Global Links between Indicators of Integration Policies and Outcomes

Author details

Thomas Huddleston is the Research Director of the Migration Policy Group. On
behalf of MPG, he chairs the EU’s migrant education network (SIRIUS) and thequarterly migration meetings of the EU NGO Platform on EU Asylum andMigration (EPAM). He is also the coordinator of MPG’s Migrant Integration Policy
Index (MIPEX), the European Website on Integration (EWSI), the VoteBrussels
campaign and the Transatlantic Migrant Democracy Dialogue. Thomas obtained
his PhD in European Studies at Maastricht University. He is a Senior Fellow of
Humanity in Action, and an alumnus of Georgetown University.

56