Introduction Measures for Newly-Arrived Migrants

1. What is the rationale for introduction programmes for new arrivals?

Why is this an issue?

Introduction measures have received increased attention in recent years largely due the fact that migrants are often not attaining the same outcomes as the native‑born. While long-term residence in the host country can increase outcomes, even long-term migrants face increased difficulty finding employment, learning the host-country language, and developing networks. Integration and social inclusion of migrants are crucial not only to ensure the cohesion of host-country societies, but also to address skills gaps, labour shortages, and to boost economic performance overall. Formal, affirmative steps to increase integration through introduction measures can help migrants integrate more quickly, allowing governments to capture benefits of migration earlier on. Recognising this, the goal in most countries is act earlier and more effectively than they have previously.

Every country faces challenges and opportunities with respect to the integration of its migrant population, but for a variety of reasons, the approach in OECD and EU countries to integration has varied significantly. Factors such as whether a country has traditionally received large numbers of migrants and the categories of migrants welcomed affect how countries choose to design introduction measures. Other factors include the distribution of competences across and within levels of government, overall policy priorities, and preferences of the host-country society. The establishment of introduction measures also requires financial investment on the part of governments. Financial responsibility for integration has only rarely been left to the private sector or to migrants themselves. In all cases, careful consideration of the rationale for the programme can help policy makers meet the expectations of both host-country society and its migrant population, justify expenditures, and communicate clearly about the potential benefits.

Understanding the rationale behind introduction measures is essential to understanding their set-up and to assessing whether the measures are helping achieve their goals. This underlying rationale is the starting point from which policy makers will determine the programme’s objective, scale, and scope and may also influence a country’s decision to provide these measures as an option for new arrivals versus imposing an obligation to participate. To this end, two questions must be considered: 1) what does the country hope to achieve through integration; and 2) what does “integration” actually mean in the particular host country?

The motivation behind offering introduction measures will drive programme design. If the objective is to deal with issues such as barriers to labour-market insertion or potential burden on the welfare system, countries may place increased focus on the design of concrete and practical labour-market measures. On the other hand, for countries in which integration is understood as furthering social inclusion, the focus may be on helping migrants understand their new host-country while retaining aspects of their native culture. In this case, measures to increase exposure of host-country natives to the migrant community may also be important. While several objectives will generally overlap, their relative weight differs widely amongst countries.

The “why” of integration also influences the “who”. If a country has the objective that all of its migrants will settle in the country for the long term, that country may choose to integrate more categories of migrants, including family members and workers. Countries that rather see migration through the temporary lens will tend to make a different decision.

How to approach it

Determine what integration means

Countries have taken a variety of strategic actions based on differing notions of integration and understandings regarding “how much” integration should be offered. Countries like the United Kingdom and the United States have historically preferred work-first incentives, leaving language training to local governments or the not-for-profit sector and encouraging the private sector to take the lead in upskilling (Annex Table 1.A.1). In other countries, such as France and Germany, language has been viewed as more important. They have, thus, a strong focus on language courses, often alongside civics instruction. These positions reflect cultural differences, as well as differences in the makeup of each nation’s economy, and there is no one‑size‑fits-all policy response. In many countries, there has been a gradual shift to a blended approach, combining language with work-first integration (Arendt et al., 2020[12]). Regardless of approach, in most countries, policies are designed to deal with the various obstacles migrants may encounter on their path to employment (Eurostat, 2022[13]).

Rationales for integration are many, and they are not merely linked to economic self-support or the meeting of concrete needs. Some may consider that to ensure integration, an individual must enjoy equal rights and feel included in the social and cultural fabric of a country. Canada’s approach to immigration and integration, for instance, targets eventual citizenship and integration into the political, economic, and social fabric of Canadian life.1 As such, Canada designs its naturalisation policy as a tool to support integration. Citizenship does not need to be limited to naturalisation however; it can be understood as the quality that a person is expected to have as a responsible member of a community. Understanding the goal of integration to be citizenship, the objective is then to encourage a sense of belonging and desire to invest in a community of shared values.

Another understanding of integration that has increasingly taken root in OECD and EU countries is that integration is achieved by setting clear obligations that the individual needs to fulfil, incentivising the individual to integrate and in some cases, penalising the failure to do so (see Chapter 6. ). In several countries, state engagement takes the form of nationally defined metrics of integration, notably through integration and language examinations. In the Netherlands, migrants who are unable to pass an integration examination within three years could face an administrative fine and possible loss of temporary residence, unless they have an asylum permit. Other countries, including Austria, Belgium (Flanders), France, Italy, and Switzerland, have also implemented integration contracts, which carry with them the obligation to reach a certain level of language proficiency and attend a civic integration course. In this context, particularly where demonstrating success on these measures is a condition for permanent residence (see Chapter 5. ) integration becomes a “pre‑citizenship” status in its own right.

This approach, which to some extent defines what it means to be integrated, has rarely been imposed as a universal obligation. In most countries where such policies are implemented, only refugees are obligated to participate and other migrants are given a choice whether to sign an integration contract. Countries that approach integration from this perspective need to consider the risks of the mandatory nature of integration programmes or examinations and be certain that any consequences for failure to complete the requirements are consistent with integration goals.

It is also important to consider that different stakeholders may have different integration goals. The priorities of local governments are formed on a community, rather than national level, leading to increased emphasis on practical problems in housing and employment, neighbourhood-level cohesion, and partnership with immigrant organisations. These may come into tension with national policies of streamlining and harmonising immigrant integration policy (Gebhardt, 2015[14]). Some countries, notably Norway and Spain, allow local governments considerable leeway to interpret integration goals, whether nationally defined or identified at a city or regional level.

Address persistent inequalities early on to provide an equal starting point

Given the focus on overcoming obstacles to employment, it is unsurprising that introduction measures are typically targeted towards helping individuals of working age find a job as quickly as possible. This approach is a rational one given policy makers’ interest in directing immigrant families toward economic self-reliance. However, a focus on rapid labour-market integration, especially targeted toward prime‑age adults, risks leaving harder-to-reach migrants, especially those not reliant on public benefits, behind.

Integration of immigrants should be seen as a long-term investment. Persistent inequalities are observed among the native‑born children of immigrant parents, particularly in Europe (OECD, 2017[15]). This is most clearly seen when it comes to rates of educational attainment. Evidence suggests that better integration of family migrants will have strong bearings on the outcomes of their children, particularly when parents are low educated and lack basic skills (Pesola and Sarvimäki, 2022[16]).2

As the understanding of integration has shifted to an emphasis on the needs of each migrant as an individual, increasing attention has been paid to designing introduction measures that can help disadvantaged migrants overcome these persistent inequalities. Integration can benefit migrant communities that have traditionally been underserved, such as low-educated women from countries where the role of women is still largely constrained to the household. It can also help migrants build skills they may not otherwise have had, for example, by encouraging them to pursue more education. Integration aimed at addressing these inequalities may not be rapid nor lead migrants more quickly into the labour market. Nevertheless, it could have substantial impact on long-term integration, in terms of social inclusion, the ability to find a stable, higher-paying job, or regarding the outcomes of the next generation.

Consider integration as an investment with positive economic and social benefits

Regardless of the priorities established by the host country, integration should be understood as an investment by both the country and the individual migrant. Integration is a catalyst to unlocking benefits of immigration, both for the migrant and for the host-country society. As with other investments, the benefits may take time to appear. In Scandinavian countries, policy makers have taken the approach of understanding integration as a migrant’s “first job,” supporting them through an integration benefit to allow them the time to build necessary skills they will use to return a benefit to the labour market and the economy at large. These policies recognise that, given the relative lack of low-skilled jobs in these economies, up-front investment in language, skills, and education may be the only way to help migrants reach their potential in the host-country society.

Viewing integration as an investment requires to think about measures in novel ways. Immigrants often have significant skills that are not identified in the immigration process. Considering the immigrant population as holding potential to unlock, notably in terms of skills, allows policy makers to focus not only on traditional metrics of integration but also on programmes to support immigrants in developing and using their skills. Family migrants may be highly educated but lack language skills and important networks. Recognising this, Germany has recently prioritised targeted, continuous integration pathways for family migrants, beginning with a pre‑arrival advisory service and including an individual hard- and soft-skills assessment, along with mentorship (BMFSFJ, 2021[17]). Immigrants are also overrepresented among the population of small-business owners and entrepreneurs.3 Entrepreneurship provides immigrants with opportunities for integration and upward mobility. Additionally, entrepreneurship contributes to job creation and innovation in society at large. Immigrant entrepreneurs hire and help integrate other migrant workers. The private sector can tap into the potential of migrant-owned businesses and their employees to increase worker talent pools. Support for nascent entrepreneurship through funding, training, and assistance with navigating administrative processes can offer significant return. This has been a specific focus of the Portuguese High Commission for Migration, which has run a project for the Promotion of Immigrant Entrepreneurship continuously since 2009.

Another way to recognise the potential of integration is to consider other social investment policies through a “migration lens.” Incorporating issues affecting the migrant population into investment decisions helps investors understand how issues affecting migrants show up across all of their investments. Such social finance models have become increasingly popular in Canada, Finland, and the United States (see Chapter 9. ) and are attractive to governments because of their potential to relieve the state’s financing burden.

An important corollary to understanding integration as an investment is that migrants and their host countries need to understand the economic and social costs of failing to integrate. Measures to help migrants understand their own need to invest in integration can aid countries in increasing participation rates. These may be targeted at helping migrants understand how integration may help their own outcomes, but it may also highlight intergenerational effects. Equally, measures targeted toward host-country natives help build support for investment in integration. In 2018, Canada launched the #ImmigrationMatters campaign to help Canadians understand how immigration benefits communities. The same year, the Association for Integration and Migration in the Czech Republic created “Let’s Talk Together (about Migration),” bringing together students from Prague and Central Bohemia to meet and participate in workshops with migrants from various origin countries.

Annex 1.A. Additional information on national-level support

Annex Table 1.A.1. National-level integration support for reception and integration of new arrivals

	Targeted national-level support for integration		If no…
	Specific measures for humanitarian migrants*	Measures for other groups	Local/regional frameworks	Access to mainstream measures
Australia	Yes (Humanitarian Settlement Program)	Adult Migrant English Program (with individual pathway guidance); Settlement Language Pathways to Employment and Training	n/a	n/a
Austria	Yes	Integration agreement	n/a	n/a
Belgium (Flanders)	Yes	Civic integration contract	n/a	n/a
Canada	Yes (Resettlement Assistance Program)	Yes	n/a	n/a
Chile	Yes	No	Local inclusion efforts	Yes
Colombia	Temporary measures for Venezuelans	No	Not systematic	Yes
Croatia	Yes	Returnees of Croatian origin	n/a	Yes
Czech Republic	Yes	No	Adaption and Integration Course provided through NGOs/integration centres	Yes
Denmark	Yes	Yes	n/a	n/a
Estonia	Yes	Adaptation modules and Estonian language	n/a	n/a
Finland	Individual integration plan	Individual integration plan	n/a	n/a
France	Yes (for youth refugees); Republican Integration Contract	Republican Integration Contract	n/a	n/a
Germany	Yes	Yes	n/a	n/a
Greece	Yes	No		Yes (third-country nationals)
Iceland	Quota refugees	Not systematically	Yes, for quota refugees	Yes
Ireland
Israel	For diaspora Jews	Aliyah for diaspora Jews and their family, returning residents	n/a	Yes
Italy	Yes	Integration agreement	n/a	n/a
Japan	Resettled Refugees	No	Language courses available	No
Korea	Yes	Marriage guidance, Korea Immigration & Integration Program (KIIP)	n/a	n/a
Latvia	Yes	Civic integration courses and language courses	No	n/a
Lithuania	Yes	No	No	Yes*
Luxembourg	Yes (Accompanied Integration Pathway)	Welcome and Integration Contract	Pakt vum Zesummeliewen and PCI (Communal Integration Plans)	n/a
Malta	Yes	Yes	n/a	n/a
Mexico	Yes	No	n/a	Yes*
Netherlands	Organises language and civics exams	Organises language and civics exams	Municipalities have responsibility for integration beginning in 2022	n/a
New Zealand	Refugee Quota Programme and Convention Refugees	No	No	Yes
Norway	Yes	Yes (language voucher)	Municipalities may offer measures from the Integration Programme to other groups with some national support	n/a
Poland	No (although funded by national government)	No	Yes. Sub-national humanitarian reception system and integration programme	Yes (although extent of services varies by location)
Portugal	Yes	Yes	n/a	n/a
Romania	Yes	National framework guides regional programmes	Yes	n/a
Slovak Republic	Labour market measures and resettlement services	No	NGO partners provide services	Yes*
Slovenia	Yes	Yes (support varies by status)	n/a	n/a
Spain	No (although funded by national government)	No (although funded by national government)	Yes. Sub-national humanitarian reception system and introduction measures	n/a
Sweden	Yes (introduction programme)	Yes (job seekers)	Municipal civic orientation for newly arrived family migrants	n/a
Switzerland	Yes	Measures for individuals under family reunification	Cantonal level integration programmes	n/a
Türkiye	Labour market measures	No	n/a	No
United Kingdom	Yes (UK Resettlement Scheme)	English for Integration Fund, Hong Kong British Nationals (Overseas)	n/a	n/a
United States	Yes	No	Some states have frameworks	Yes (in some cases)

Note: Humanitarian-specific measures include those targeted to migrants joining principal refugees under family reunification; Costa Rica and Ireland have not participated in this exercise and are not included in the annex tables herein; n/a = information is not applicable.

*In some countries, mainstream services are available to those holding specific status. LTH offers services to humanitarian migrants and third-country nationals with residency who are exempt from work permit requirements. MEX and SVK offer services to refugees and to residents, which may exclude certain new arrivals.

Source: OECD questionnaire on introduction measures for new arrivals 2021.

Notes

← 1.  Policy makers should also understand that the country’s perspective on integration might change according to its needs. In recent years, Canada’s policy has changed to respond to its own domestic considerations and the increasing diversity of the foreign-born population (Griffith, 2017[83]).

← 2.  One key observation of OECD work in this area is that immigrant mothers’ labour market participation can have a crucial impact on the outcomes of their children, and particularly their daughters. Having had a working mother when the child is age 14 increases the employment probability for native‑born children of immigrants from a non-EU country by about twice as much as for their peers with native‑born parents (4 percentage points). For daughters of non-EU-origin women, the difference is most pronounced: having a working mother instead of one staying at home increases daughters’ employment rate by 16 percentage points (OECD, 2020[6]).

← 3.  In the United States, immigrants are much more likely than the native‑born to start businesses. According to the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurship, in 2016, the percentage of adults, both U.S.-born and immigrant, who became entrepreneurs in any given month was 0.31 percent. The entrepreneurship rate for immigrants during the same time period was 0.52 percent, about twice the rate of the US-born (0.26%). Of all new entrepreneurs in 2016, 29.5 percent were immigrants (Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 2017[84])