The missing factor: why social democracy can lead to restrictive immigration policy

Abstract

It is puzzling that social democratic parties are rarely the main focus of attention in the migration policy making literature, despite their crucial role in most European party systems and their frequent tenure in government. In this article, we seek to address this shortcoming by examining key immigration policies advocated by the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP) over the past 40 years. This article shows that the SAP believes there are distinct limits to the ability of ‘the people’s home’ to make room for immigrants. Given social democracy’s clear adherence to notions of solidarity, inclusiveness and internationalism, the empirical findings of this article are counter-intuitive. Specifically, the Swedish Social Democrats have, since the late 1960s, continuously backed, and indeed initiated, strict immigration policies. Party ideology has been the missing factor in understanding these concrete immigration policies

Immigration into the mainstream: Conflicting ideological streams, strategic reasoning and party competition

“…That is, the centre-left is just as likely as the centreright to introduce changes regarding immigration controls, citizenship policies or access to welfare benefits (Hinnfors et al, 2011).…”

“…For Social Democratic and reformed Left parties, limiting it can easily be seen as vital in order to retain collective power and good terms and conditions in the labour market (see Hinnfors et al 2011). Giving up the right to decide on entry would run the risk of undermining the collectively bargained agreements and allow wages to be undercut.…”

International migration and the rise of the ‘civil’ nation

“…I think there are two main points worth mentioning. First, while a considerable amount of scholarship has explored the liberal convergence across countries, relatively few studies have investigated this convergence across political parties within the same country (Alonso and da Fonseca 2012, Hinnfors et al 2012, Jensen and Mouritsen 2015. Findings for Italy suggest that this is a useful exercise, as it permits further amplification of the meanings of the 'civic turn'.…”

More and More Restrictive—But Not Always Populist: Explaining Variation in the British Conservative Party's Stance on Immigration and Asylum

“…But anyone who thinks that it takes a fringe (or formerly-fringe) party to prompt its bigger, older rivals (and not only those located on the right of the political spectrum) into talking and sometimes even acting tough in this regard has either a very short memory or is ideologically-blinkered. In the Nordic countries, for example, social democratic parties, with their traditionally strong links to trade unions, were among 2 the first in Europe to insist on the so-called 'immigration stop' which became a common response to the economic difficulties of the early 1970s and which -owing at least as much to those selfsame parties as to their far-right opponents -remains in force today, albeit with qualifications triggered by legal obligations to allow free movement to citizens of an enlarged EU and to consider applications for asylum from increasing numbers of people fleeing civil and international conflicts in the MiddleEast and Sub-Saharan Africa (see Hinnfors et al, 2012).Flight from danger and persecution, and indeed free movement, of course, is nothing new. Nor is a modicum of moral panic about such things.…”