From Integration to Attraction: A PROMETHEE Approach to Macro-Talent Management for Migrants—A Comparative Analysis of European Welfare Models

National mechanisms of migrant integration into the host society and the wider social context in which migration occurs may affect the construction of public attitudes towards migrants regardless of their origin or status. By combining the data of two international studies: the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) and the European Social Survey (ESS), this paper examines national policies regarding migrant integration and the public perception of migrants in the host society in selected European countries. This analysis highlights especially the shifts in public attitudes as possible consequences of the 2015/2016 European “migration crisis”. The data from 27 European countries that participated in the last waves of both MIPEX2020 and ESS2018 were analysed according to the four-dimensional MIPEX categorisation: 1) Comprehensive integration, 2) Equality on paper, 3) Temporary integration, and 4) Immigration without integration (Integration denied). These categories of states’ migration policies were then combined with the public perceptions of immigrants examined by the ESS. Multilevel regression models demonstrated that the respondents from countries with well-developed integration policies express a more positive attitude towards immigrants and acknowledge their contribution to all areas of the host society. A higher proportion of non-EU-27 immigrants in the country correlates with a more negative perception of immigrants’ impact on the host country. Even though the MIPEX score does not reflect clearly the shift in migration policies affected by the European “migration crisis”, it could be considered a stable, though relatively weak predictor of anti-immigrant prejudice. In conclusion, this study's findings suggest that better-developed policies of political participation and immigrant inclusion foster more positive attitudes towards immigrants.

This chapter intends to provide a deeper understanding of what the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) quantitative policy database has done to fill gaps and identify the links within integration policymaking. It identifies correlations first between the dimensions within a MIPEX strand score and then between the MIPEX strand scores. The chapter also intends to investigate to what extent integration policies are parts of broader policy contexts on competition, welfare policy, good governance. It compares countries performance when it comes to integration policy making with their performance in other policy areas, measured with similar comparative indices. The chapter considers to what extent significant correlations may indicate trends in national policy performance in Europe. It investigates the relationships between different strands and dimensions of the MIPEX, as well as between MIPEX and various other country indices, using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Keywords: European immigration policymaking; integration policies; Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX); Pearson correlation coefficient

This article examines the level of development of integration policies in the European Economic Area and the attempts to compare and standardize them. We discuss national integration models and policies based on the results of the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) and OECD/EU indicators of integration. Indicating the possible pitfalls of measuring and comparing integration policies, the results of researches into labour mobility and access to citizenship are examined. This comparative study shows that the indicators of immigrant integration are often at odds with the development level of integration policies, which results in their inadequate implementation in practice. Furthermore, EU countries face different challenges in the enactment of integration policies which spring from diverse (im)migration experiences, the scope of past migrations, and recent migratory flows. This is why integration policies should be re‐indexed, taking into consideration the particularities of (im)migration flows, the size of the immigrant population and other relevant factors.

Korea, a new immigration country, deserves to be included in the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX). With an overall MIPEX score of 60/100, the Republic’s current integration policies are just “slightly favorable” for promoting integration. It ranks 13th among the 31 MIPEX III countries. Compared to most other recent emerging countries of immigration, the country has very quickly improved its legal framework for integration. The major areas of strength in South Korea’s integration policies are its targeted policies on labor market support, migrant pupils’ education access and needs, voting rights, and support for immigrant associations. However, these policies are relatively new and need to be fully evaluated as to their implementation and effectiveness. Moreover, significant policy weaknesses emerge across all seven areas, such as autonomous permits for reunited family members, the implementation of intercultural education, the political liberties of foreigners, the exclusion from family reunion and long-term residence for certain permit-holders, various restrictions on access to nationality, and the weak definitions and enforcement mechanisms on discrimination. The research demonstrates that Korea has taken important steps forward, but that it can do better to create a more encouraging environment in which immigrants can contribute to a country’s prosperity and well-being.

Migrants’ integration process and their labour market inclusion occur within distinct local contexts. However, the existing literature has paid little attention to the role of the local context and its relationship with national-level policy outcomes on migrant integration. This study addresses this gap by using new regional (NUTS-2) data from Eurostat and integration policy data from MIPEX, coupled with multivariate analyses. We investigate how national-level integration policies are related to the employment rate gap between migrants and country nationals, and how this relationship varies depending on the local context. Results show that migrant integration policies exhibit no association with this gap in low-competitive, culturally homogeneous and rural regions. Conversely, integration policies are associated with a larger gap in high-competitive and diverse urban regions. Notably, consistent with previous national-level literature, inclusive integration policies are associated with negative outcomes for migrants compared to country nationals. However, a shift toward more inclusive policies is found to reduce this gap, suggesting that inclusive policies may be a response to a widening divide between country nationals and migrants. This study offers valuable insights into the role of regional configurations and the impact of national-level integration policies on migrants' labor market outcomes, providing a local perspective that enhances our understanding of migrant integration processes.

It is difficult to decide whether authors like Galya Lahav, stressing the importance of public opinion for policy making, or like Gary Freeman, stressing the importance of targeted mobilisation and lobbying for policy making, are closest to the truth when immigrant integration policy is concerned. This chapter tries to shed light on the nexus between policy making and public opinion with regard to immigrant integration. It contributes to the discussions on the topic by pinpointing to the relevance of the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) data set. The chapter empirically investigates whether public opinion and policy co-vary across 25 European countries. To this purpose, it makes use of the MIPEX combined with the Eurobarometer. Before doing so, the chapter shortly discusses the interesting analysis undertaken by Meuleman and Reeskens who, in a similar effort, have already confronted the MIPEX results with data from the European Social Survey (ESS). Keywords: Eurobarometer; European Social Survey (ESS); European Union; immigrant integration policy; Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) data; public opinion

Birthweight of Babies Born to Migrant Mothers - What Role Do Integration Policies Play?

Birthweight of babies born to migrant mothers - What role do integration policies play?

Due to a lack of data, quantitative analysis of integration policy trends during the past decade has received limited attention. This research note presents newly collected data from the Migrant Integration Policy Index, which includes information on several different policy areas related to migrant integration in 36 EU and OECD countries between 2010 and 2019. Employing a wide set of methods, we investigate whether migrant integration policies have become more liberal or restrictive and whether they have converged across these countries during this period. We find that overall these policies have become more liberal, except in non-EU countries as well as in the areas of family reunion and permanent residence. However, the magnitude of these changes is rather small. We also show that there has been a trend of convergence in integration policy, which varies in intensity across policy areas. We conclude that while migrants’ rights have been extended, long-term settlement has been limited. The popular idea that this decade, marked by crises, has triggered a comprehensive restrictive backlash in migrant integration policies is refuted.

This chapter aims to investigate whether the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) data reveal clear pattern of differences between countries. Basically this amounts to the question whether it is possible to distinguish groups or families of countries that have comparable patterns of integration policies. The chapter first briefly reviews the literature on distinctions in integration regimes, departing from Brubaker's dichotomy. Subsequently, it empirically explores whether country clusters can be detected based on the MIPEX data. The chapter correlates the country clusters with civic and ethnic nationhood survey conceptions to figure out whether the discovered clusters coincide with preferences among the population of those countries. Finally, it identifies some shortcomings of the current analysis and list topics for future research. Keywords: Brubakers model; civic-ethnic survey; country clusters; immigrant integration; integration regimes; Migrant Integration Policy Index(MIPEX) data

Existing studies show that there is a positive association between pro-migrant integration policies and the subjective well-being of immigrants. However, there is a lack of research elucidating the relations between migrant integration policies and the subjective well-being of the host (i.e., non-migrant) population. This study is based on European data and uses multilevel analysis to clarify the relations between migrant integration policy (both as a whole and its eight separate components such as: Labor market mobility and Family reunion) and the subjective well-being of the non-immigrant population in European countries. We examined relations between the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) for 22 countries in Europe and subjective well-being, as assessed by the European Social Survey (ESS) data. The results demonstrated that there is a positive relation between the MIPEX and subjective well-being for non-immigrants. Considering different components of the MIPEX separately, we found most of them being positively related to the subjective well-being of non-immigrants. As no negative relationship was identified between any of the eight MIPEX components and subjective well-being, policies in favor of immigrant integration also seem to benefit the non-immigrant population.

The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) began as a pilot project in 2004 and expanded in 2007 to establish a reliable biannual standard-setting and monitoring tool for governmental integration policies. This chapter briefly explains the construction of the MIPEX and its methodology. It specifies the adopted and proposed legal instruments that informed the selection of MIPEX strands, dimensions, indicators, and answer options. The chapter explains how legal provisions were turned into numbers enabling quantitative comparisons by taking readers through the example of the family reunion policy strand. MIPEX can be used to monitor policy developments as a result of domestic change, the transposition of European directives, or ratification of international conventions, for pointing to the necessity to address important issues for immigrants and for bringing policies more in line with international human rights standards and equality principles. Keywords: equality standards; European integration standards; family reunion policy; Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX)

The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) is a unique comparative study on indicators of the legal integration of third-country nationals. Though comparing countries on the basis of various indicator types is common in the private sector and increasingly used in policy areas like development, good governance and equality, the exercise remains relatively new in justice and home affairs. The book lays out the instruments used to construct the MIPEX and then situates the study within current debates on integration indicators and policy evaluation. Each chapter considers what the study's key findings add to our understanding of the state of integration policy development across Europe and of recent legal and policy trends on anti-discrimination, naturalisation, labour market access, and political participation.

In today’s society, entrepreneurial activities are important, as they can create social values and wealth. This study explores entrepreneurial activities across various European countries and proposes a novel approach for its effective measurement. To this end, this study utilizes established indices by the World Bank – the 2020 European Chamber (EuCham) index, and the migrant integration policy index (MIPEX), which focuses on migrant integration. In addition, it introduces a novel index, called the Migrant Entrepreneurship (IMIGRENT) index, to accurately quantify a country’s attractiveness for entrepreneurial activities. These are part of the respective indexes for entrepreneurial activities, such as company registration processes, personal affairs, accommodation, and environmental conditions. A country’s attractiveness for entrepreneurial activities is evaluated based on entrepreneurs’ preferences and diverse needs, as well as immigrants’ citizenship. After comparing the three indices mentioned above, more similar results are obtained for the 2020 EuCham and the IMIGRENT index than MIPEX, attributable to the greater importance given to financial factors in the IMIGRENT and EuCham indexes compared with MIPEX, which prioritizes social and integration-related factors. Notably, the IMIGRENT index reports some important additional values in a comparative analysis of European countries, such as the role of immigrant citizenship, and the country’s legislation, as well as other aspects related to personal affairs, accommodation, social services, or the host country’s weather.

The increasing ethnic and cultural diversity of contemporary societies has raised the importance of integration policies for people with a migrant background. Tools like the Migrant Integration Policy Index have been developed to evaluate different countries' integration approaches. If, on the one hand, focusing on what governments are doing to promote integration is necessary, on the other hand, it is of utmost importance to consider individuals' attitudes toward these policies. Study 1: A pilot study with 356 adolescents (41.1% female, 58.9% male; Mage = 15.38) and 200 adults (69% female, 31% male; Mage = 47.43) was conducted to test the psychometric proprieties of the Attitudes Toward Migrant Integration Policies scale. Study 2: A total of 1,156 adolescents (51.6% female, 48.4% male; Mage = 15.69), 1,288 parents (56.9% mothers, 43.1% fathers; Mage = 49.39), and 284 teachers (68.3% female, 31.7% male; Mage = 45.55) were involved in a study to evaluate how attitudes toward integration policies differ within generations (e.g., ethnic majority and minority groups), within families (e.g., adolescents vs. their fathers), and across generational groups (i.e., adolescents, parents, and teachers). Latent mean comparisons indicated that attitudes toward integration policies varied significantly across sex (for adolescents and parents), ethnic background (parents only), and school track (adolescents) groups. Regarding differences within family dyads, adolescents reported more positive attitudes toward integration policies than their fathers and mothers. Finally, teachers showed more positive attitudes compared to adolescents and their parents. Overall, this study highlights nuanced intergenerational differences, with adolescents standing in between the different positions of their parents and teachers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).