33
14

38

MIGRANTINTEGRATIONPOLICY INDEX
2020

67

45

56
81

INTERNATIONAL
KEY FINDINGS

22

23

69

43
81

66
59

14

WWW.MIPEX.EU
WWW.MIPEX.EU

MIPEX2020

POLICY INDICATORS:KEY FINDINGSDIMENSIONS OF AND APPROACHES TO INTEGRATIONMIPEX measures eight areas of integration policy. Throughquantitative analyses (Categorical Principal Component
Analysis), MPG’s research team identiﬁed three key dimensions that underlie all areas of a country’s integration policy.
These three dimensions help to describe a country’s overall
approach to integration:
BASIC RIGHTS:
Can immigrants enjoy comparable rights as nationals? e.g.,equal rights to work, training, health, and non-discrimination.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES:Can immigrants receive support to enjoy comparable
opportunities as nationals? e.g., targeted support ineducation, health, and political participation.
SECURE FUTURE:
Can immigrants settle long-term and feel secure about their
future in the country? e.g., family reuniﬁcation, permanent
residence and access to nationality.

1. Comprehensive Integration - Top 10
2. Comprehensive Integration (slightly favourable)
3. Temporary Integration (slightly favourable)
4. Comprehensive integration (halfway favourable)
5. Equality on paper (halfway favourable)
6. Temporary integration (halfway unfavourable)
7. Immigration without integration (halfway unfavourable)
8. Equality on paper (halfway unfavourable)
9. Equality on paper(slightly unfavourable)
10. Immigration without integration (most unfavourable)

Countries have been then sorted into groups based on their scoreson those dimensions. These groups represent diﬀerent countries’
approaches to integration. We identiﬁed four main approaches:
COMPREHENSIVE INTEGRATION
A comprehensive approach to integration guarantees equal rights,
opportunities and security for immigrants.
EQUALITY ON PAPER
Equality on paper means that immigrants enjoy equal rights andlong-term security, but not equal opportunities.
TEMPORARY INTEGRATION
Temporary integration means that immigrants enjoy basic rights
and equal opportunities, but not equal security, as they face
obstacles to settle in the long-term.
IMMIGRATION WITHOUT INTEGRATION
Immigration without integration means that immigrants are denied
basic rights and equal opportunities, even if they are able to settle
long-term in the country.

MIPEX2020
RANKING
Within each of these four categories, there are a range ofpolicies. In other words, countries with the same approach
to integration may have more vs. less developed policies.
Therefore, countries are categorised under 10 diﬀerent
groups that reﬂect their overall approach to integration andtheir level of policy development. The MIPEX 2020 ranking
ranks these groups according to the average score of thecountries within each group:
1. TOP TEN COUNTRIES (average score: 75/100):
Countries in this group represent the top ten out of the 56
MIPEX countries. They adopt a comprehensive approach tointegration, which fully guarantees equal rights, opportunities and security for immigrants and citizens. Policies inthese countries generally encourage the public to see
immigrants as their equals, neighbours and potential
citizens.
Top 5: Canada (80) • Finland (85) • New Zealand (77)Portugal (81) • Sweden (86)Australia (65) • Belgium (69) • Brazil (64)
Ireland (64) • USA (73)
2. COMPREHENSIVE INTEGRATIONSLIGHTLY FAVOURABLE (average score: 60/100)
These countries adopt a comprehensive approach tointegration. However, policies in these countries are lesscomprehensive and less advanced than in the 'Top 10'
MIPEX countries. In these countries, policies do not always
encourage the public to see immigrants as their equals,
neighbours and potential citizens.
Iceland (56) • Israel (49) • Luxembourg (64)
Norway (69) • Spain (60)Key ﬁndings

6. TEMPORARY INTEGRATIONHALFWAY UNFAVOURABLE (average score: 48/100)
These countries go only halfway towards granting immigrants withbasic rights and equal opportunities. Furthermore, they do notprovide immigrants with a secure future in the country. Policies inthese countries encourage the public to see immigrants as foreigners and not fully as equals and neighbours.
Austria (46) • Denmark (49) • Switzerland (50)

7. IMMIGRATION WITHOUT INTEGRATIONHALFWAY UNFAVOURABLE (average score: 47/100)
These countries are categorised as “Immigration without Integration” because their policies deny that the country has become adestination country. Immigrants may ﬁnd ways to settle long-term,
but they are not fully supported with the rights and equal opportunities to participate in society. This group of countries goes halfway
towards investing in equal opportunities. Policies may encourage
the public to see immigrants as subordinates and not neighbors.
Japan (47)
8. EQUALITY ON PAPERHALFWAY UNFAVOURABLE (average score: 43/100)
Equality on paper means that immigrants do not enjoy equal
opportunities. This group of countries mainly focus on basic rights
for immigrants, and only go halfway towards providing them withlong-term security. Policies may encourage the public to see
immigrants as equal but also as subordinate and not potential
citizens.
Bulgaria (40) • Chile (53) • Hungary (43) • Moldova (47)
North Macedonia (42) • Romania (49) • Slovakia (39)

3. TEMPORARY INTEGRATIONHALFWAY FAVOURABLE (average score: 57/100)

9. EQUALITY ON PAPER
SLIGHTLY UNFAVOURABLE (average score: 39/100)

These countries provide immigrants with basic rights andequal opportunities, but not a secure future in the country.
Policies in these countries encourage the public to see
immigrants as their equals and neighbours, but also as
foreigners rather than as potential citizens.

Equality on paper means that immigrants do not enjoy equal
opportunities. This group of countries goes only halfway towards
providing immigrants with basic rights and a secure future. Policies
may encourage the public to see immigrants as subordinates, notequal and not potential citizens.

France (56) • Germany (58) • Italy (58)Netherlands (57) • United Kingdom (56)

Albania (43) • Croatia (39) • Greece (46) • Latvia (37)
Lithuania (37) • Poland (40)

4. COMPREHENSIVE INTEGRATIONHALFWAY FAVOURABLE (average score: 50/100)
These countries do the minimum in all three dimensions as
their polices go only halfway towards providing immigrants
with equal rights, opportunities and a secure future.
Czechia (50) • Estonia (50) • Korea (56) • Malta (48) • Turkey (43)
5. EQUALITY ON PAPERHALFWAY FAVOURABLE (average score: 49/100)
Equality on paper means that immigrants enjoy equal rights
and long-term security, but not equal opportunities. Policies
generally encourage the public to see immigrants as theirequals, as potential citizens, but also as strangers rather
than as neighbours.
Argentina (58) • Mexico (51) • Serbia (50) • South Africa (48)
Slovenia (48) • Ukraine (48)

10. IMMIGRATION WITHOUT INTEGRATION
MOST UNFAVOURABLE (average score: 28/100)
These countries are categorised as “Immigration without Integration” because their policies deny that the country has become adestination country. Immigrants may ﬁnd ways to settle long-term,
but are not supported with basic rights or equal opportunities toparticipate in society. Policies may encourage the public to see
immigrants as subordinates and as strangers.
China (32) • Cyprus (41) • India (24) • Indonesia (26) • Russia (31)
Jordan (21) • Russia (31) • Saudi Arabia (10)United Arab Emirates (30)

MIPEX2020

Key ﬁndings

EU13

EU15

EU28

MIPEX56

OECD AU,CA,NZ,USA

100

75
58
50

41

49

49

EU28
average is 49/100

MIPEX56
average is 49/100

56

0
EU13
average is 41/100

EU15
average is 58/100

Integration policies in the 56 MIPEX countries are, on
average, only halfway favourable (49/100). That means, on
average, countries’ policies are creating as many obstacles
as opportunities for immigrants to participate and settle intheir new home country. Immigrants enjoy many basic
rights (average score is 62) and, to a certain extent,
long-term security (56). However, they do not enjoy theequal opportunities (41) that they need to fully participate
in all areas of life.
This halfway approach to integration can also confuse thepublic and undermine the message that integration is a
two-way process. While some policies encourage the public
to see and treat immigrants as their equals, many policies
send contradictory messages that immigrants are bothneighbours and strangers, both foreigners and potential
citizens.
A country’s integration policies can be partly explained by
the state of its democracy and economic development andits history of immigration. On the one hand, immigrants
generally face greater obstacles in emerging destination
countries with small numbers of immigrants and high levelsof anti-immigration sentiment (Middle Eastern and Asian
countries, the Baltics, Balkans and Central and Eastern
Europe, e.g. EU13 average is 41/100). On the other hand, in
wealthier, larger and traditional destination countries
immigrants usually beneﬁt from more equal rights andopportunities, for example in highly developed democracies (OECD average is 56), Western Europe (EU15 average is
58/100) and traditional countries of immigration (75/100 on
average for Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US).
Regional trends can also help to explain the three dimensions of integration policy. While immigrants in the majorityof MIPEX countries enjoy access to basic rights, support forequal opportunities is much greater in Western Europe(EU15) and traditional countries of immigration (plus Brazil).
Immigrants in Middle East and Asia, for example, face many
obstacles in most areas and dimensions of integration
policy. Finally, most MIPEX countries provide some securityOECDaverage is 56/100

Traditional
destination is 75/100

for immigrants and their families to settle long-term, with
the notable exception of most Northwestern European
countries (Austria, Denmark, France, Italy, Germany, theNetherlands, Switzerland, UK as well as Indonesia andLatvia).
In terms of international areas of strength, migrant workers,
reunited families and permanent residents enjoy basic
security, rights, and protection from discrimination. Within
Europe, national policies are stronger and convergent inthese areas covered by EU law. The international areas of
weakness are education and political participation.
On education, most immigrant pupils worldwide have little
extra support to ﬁnd the right school and class, catch up if
they're behind, quickly learn the language and, if they're
lucky, learn some of the rules of the language that they use
at home. Teachers and other pupils are lucky if they learn
anything about diversity or immigrants. Most countries
leave it up to the general education system to ﬁx (orexacerbate) any problems.
On political participation, most immigrants, especiallyforeign citizens, have few opportunities to inform andimprove the policies that aﬀect them daily, since mostauthorities design policies ‘for’ them and are not informedby or accountable to them. On average, immigrants areslightly more discouraged than encouraged to participate
through the standard civic channels, limited local voting
rights for foreign citizens, weak or absent consultative
bodies and poorly supported immigrant-led organizations.

MIPEX2020

Key ﬁndings

GENERAL
SCORE
Country
nameApproach
to integration

Overallscore 2020

Changesince 2014

SwedenComprehensive (Top10)

86

- 1

FinlandComprehensive (Top10)

85

+ 3

PortugalComprehensive (Top10)

81

+ 3

CanadaComprehensive (Top10)

80

+ 2

New ZealandComprehensive (Top10)

77

/ 0

USA

Comprehensive (Top10)

73

- 2

NorwayComprehensive

69

- 3

BelgiumComprehensive (Top10)

69

/ 0

Australia

Comprehensive (Top10)

65

- 4

BrazilComprehensive (Top10)

64

+ 12

Luxembourg

Comprehensive

64

+ 10

IrelandComprehensive (Top10)

64

+ 5

Spain

Comprehensive

60

+ 3

Germany

Temporary58+ 1

Argentina

Equality on paper

58

- 4

Italy

Temporary58- 1

Netherlands

Temporary57/ 0

IcelandComprehensive

56

+ 7

FranceTemporary56+ 3

United Kingdom

Temporary

56

- 1

Korea

Comprehensive

56

- 2

Chile

Equality on paper

53

+ 3

MexicoEquality on paper

51

- 1

Estonia

Comprehensive

50

+ 5

Switzerland

Temporary50/ 0

SerbiaEquality on paper

50

+ 5

Czechia

Comprehensive

50

+ 3

Romania

Equality on paper

49

/ 0

IsraelComprehensive

49

- 1

Denmark

Temporary49- 4

80 - 100 - Favourable
60-79 - Slightly favourable
41-59 - Halfway favourable
21-40 - Slightly unfavourable
1-20 - Unfavourable
0 - Critically unfavourable

MIPEX2020

Key ﬁndings

GENERAL
SCORE
Country
nameApproach
to integration

Overallscore 2020

Changesince 2014

UkraineTemporary

48

+

2

Malta

Comprehensive

48

+

5

South Africa

Equality on paper

48

/

0

Slovenia

Equality on paper

48

+

3

Japan

Integration denied

47

+

1

Moldova

Equality on paper

47

+

8

GreeceEquality on paper

46

+

3

Austria

Temporary

46

/

0

Albania

Equality on paper

43

+

1

Hungary

Equality on paper

43

+

1

TurkeyComprehensive

43

+

17

North Macedonia

Equality on paper

42

/

0

CyprusIntegration denied

41

+

2

Bulgaria

Equality on paper

40

+

3

PolandEquality on paper

40

-

1

Croatia

Equality on paper

39

+

1

Slovakia

Equality on paper

39

+

2

Latvi

Equality on paper

37

+

3

Lithuania

Equality on paper

37

+

4

China

Integration denied

32

+

5

RussiaIntegration denied

31

+

2

United Arab Emirates

Integration denied

29

+

8

Indonesia

Integration denied

26

+

1

India

Integration denied

24

/

0

JordanIntegration denied

21

+

2

Saudi Arabia

Integration denied

10

-

1

80 - 100 - Favourable
60-79 - Slightly favourable
41-59 - Halfway favourable
21-40 - Slightly unfavourable
1-20 - Unfavourable
0 - Critically unfavourable

MIPEX2020

Key ﬁndings

CHANGES
TU
+1
+
+17
+10

LU

+
BR
+12 +

*

-

-4

-4

AR

-

-2

DK

-

- -4 AU+2 points on average on the
MIPEX 100-point-scale-1-!____Integration policies continue to improve very slowly overtime, but sometimes with signiﬁcant impact in a particulararea of life.The change in the MIPEX56 average was +2
points between 2014-2019.

________Brazil: Major reforms (mostly in 2017) transformed
Brazil’s halfway “Equality on paper’” policies into a slightly
favourable “comprehensive approach.” These changes have
now landed Brazil in the International ‘Top 10’ countries.

!____Over the past ﬁve years, the MIPEX56 score (average ofthe 56 countries’ scores) increased by +2 points on basic
rights, by +2 on equal opportunities and by +4 on secure
future.

________Iceland: Iceland’s anti-discrimination policies can beseen as a major recognition of Iceland as a country of
immigration. Before, immigrants who settled in Iceland do
not enjoy equal rights or opportunities (“immigration
without integration”). Now, newcomers beneﬁt from aslightly favourable comprehensive approach.

!____Positively, the greatest policy improvements were in thetwo international areas of weakness: +7 points on educationand +5 points on political participation.
!____Permanent residence is the only area in which
immigrants have seen policies worsening (-2 points).

________Ireland: Ireland’s 2017-2020 Migrant Integration
Strategy created a slightly favourable comprehensive
approach focused on equal rights and opportunities, which
launched Ireland into the International ‘Top 10’ countries.

!____35 countries improved their integration policies overall
between 2014-2019, although seven only saw an improvement of +1. The most dramatic improvements occurred in
Turkey (+17), Brazil (+12) and Luxembourg (+10).

________Norway: Given the insecurity facing immigrants whowant to settle permanently, Norway fell from the ‘Top Ten’to the top of the second category of leading countries. Its
comprehensive approach now lacks key aspects of equality.

!____112 countries undermined their integration policies
during the same period, due to restrictive changes (Argentina, Australia, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Norway,
Poland, Sweden, Saudi Arabia and the US). The greatest
backsliding occurred in Argentina, Australia, and Denmark(-4).

________Turkey: Turkey has had to recognise itself as acountry of immigration that must guarantee basic rights andopportunities, for example to education, health, the labour
market and non-discrimination. Despite this major shift
from being a country of “immigration without integration”,
Turkey’s new “comprehensive approach” is still only halfway
favourable, with slightly more obstacles than opportunities
for integration in Turkey.

!____9 countries received the same score in 2014 and 2019,
due to balance between positive and negative changes, only
minor improvements or minor restrictions (Austria, Hungary,
the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and UK), or no changes
at all (India, New Zealand, Romania and South Africa).
!____Most signiﬁcantly, 6 countries experienced suchsigniﬁcant policy changes that these new policies represent
a major shift in the country’s overall approach to integration:________Argentina: Argentina’s current approach can now
only classiﬁed as ‘Equality on Paper’ as recent restrictions
undermined its comprehensive approach to integration andits commitment to equal opportunities.

!____For comparison: Between 2010-2014, 10 countries
passed major reforms (Denmark’s several reforms catching
up with policies in Nordics, Germany and international
trends; more targeted support in Austria and Germany anddual nationality for 2nd generation in Germany; Czechia and
Poland adopt EU-required anti-discrimination laws anddomestic citizenship reforms; Bulgaria implements EU law)!____Between 2007-2010, major reforms were passed in justa handful of countries (in Luxembourg on all areas, in
Greece on citizenship & voting rights, in Austria on targeted
employment support, in Czechia on anti-discrimination, in
Latvia on access to education and training).

MIPEX2020

Key ﬁndings

FINAL
REMARKSKEY FINDINGS ON INTEGRATION POLICIESAND THEIR EFFECTS
The major disparities in integration policies around theworld reﬂect the major diﬀerences in integration outcomes
and attitudes around the world. The integration policies
identiﬁed by MIPEX also shape how immigrants and the
public respond to these inequalities.
A country’s approach to integration matters because thesepolicies inﬂuence how integration works as a two-way
process. This two-way approach emerges from around 130
independent scientiﬁc studies that use MIPEX to investigate
if and how these policies can close gaps in key integration
outcomes.
First, a country’s approach to integration strongly inﬂuences
the public’s attitudes and behaviour towards immigrants.
Integration policies are one of the strongest factors shaping
the public’s willingness to accept and interact withimmigrants (see chart below, based on the MIPEX overall
score with health and the Gallup’s Migrant AcceptanceIndex).

The way that governments treat immigrants strongly
inﬂuences how well immigrants and the public interact withand think of each other. Restrictive policies create a ‘vicious
circle’ of exclusion that reinforces fear and separation.
Policies that treat immigrants as threats lead more people tosee immigrants as general threats and treat them in waysthat harm their integration. Under restrictive policies, thepublic experiences higher levels of xenophobia andislamophobia and lower levels of social trust, which leads tofewer contacts and positive experiences with immigrants.
Inclusive policies create a ‘virtuous circle’ of integration that
promotes openness and interaction. Immigrants and the
public are more likely to interact with and think of eachother as equals in countries where inclusive policies treat
immigrants as equals and invest in integration as anopportunity for society.

Second, integration policies are one of strongest factors
shaping immigrants’ own attitudes, sense of belonging andeven their health in their new home country. A country’s
approach to integration also shapes how well immigrants
think and feel about their new home country (see chart
below, based on the MIPEX overall score with health and the
Gallup’s World Happiness Report).

Inclusive policies not only increase positive attitudes andinteractions between the public and immigrants, but also
create an overall sense of belonging, well-being and trust.
Under inclusive policies, the public feels less fear of
immigrants, while immigrants enjoy greater opportunities tolearn and contribute. As a result, immigrants and non-immigrants have more regular, positive interactions. They also
more frequently develop positive attitudes about theiridentity, their health, their satisfaction with life, their trust insociety and their participation in politics.

MIGRANT INTEGRATION POLICY INDEX 2020

LEADING PARTNERSSPONSORS