The missing factor: why social democracy can lead to restrictive immigration policy
Type of text: Vetenskaplig artikel
Published by: Journal of European Public Policy
Author: Jonas Hinnfors, Andrea Spehar, and Gregg Bucken-Knapp
Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2011.607348
[Inte offentligt tillgänglig]
Short description of text
The article investigates the role of the Swedish Social Democratic Party’s (SAP) policy in affecting immigration policies. It distinguishes between the (SAP)’s commitments to solidarity in implementing its integration plans, and its entry categorisation policy. It analyses key immigration policies advocated by (SAP) over the past 4 decades. It focuses specifically on the trends of the party in restricting the immigration policy specifically on the humanitarian basis; refugee and asylum migration and family reunification and it analyses the role of ideology in limiting this immigration through reformulating and restricting entry policy for immigrants “there are distinct limits to the ability of ‘people’s homes’ to make room for immigrants”(p.5-7) It highlights the role of labour migration and the “right-wing populist party threat” in (non)shaping the immigration policy.(p.8-11).
Most important results
The article argues that the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP) has, for the last 40 years, been in favor of more restrictive immigration policies by favoring its ideological tenets and preferences on the area politics especially in relation to refugees, asylum, and family reunification. The article argues that the previous research on immigration policy “has generally concentrated on right of-center parties” (p.2.) The article argues that research on (SAP) policy has been absent.
migration policy, ideology, vote maximizing behavior, far-right populist threat.
The material consists of party policy decisions on restrictive/open immigration policy from 1968-2010
Suggestions for further research
- the articles suggests the need for research to develop explanatory tools and widening the empirical scope in examining social democracy politics and the relationship between overarching ideologies and the actual policies. Questions like “ to what extent do social democracies preferences influence different categories of migration policy” (p.17-18)