International comparison · 8 countries
Several countries have chosen different paths than Sweden regarding selection, volume and integration requirements. Outcomes differ markedly in employment and long-term public costs. This compares eight countries using OECD, KI, Ruist, VIVE, IAB, StatCan and CBS.
The question this page answers
What can Sweden learn from countries that chose other paths — and what outcomes have their policy choices produced?
Key figures — the most important numbers on this page
Countries compared
8
SE, DK, NO, DE, NL, FI, CA, AU.
Largest employment gap (5–7 yrs)
SE / DE
OECD 2018–2023.
Smallest gap
CA / AU
Points-based selection.
Fiscal net CA/AU
Positive overall
StatCan / Productivity Commission.
Refugee employment 5–7 years after arrival, fiscal net effect per person and year, and asylum volume per 100,000 inhabitants. Sources are listed per country — click each country to verify.
High asylum intake, low threshold
Empl.
58%
Fiscal
−74k
Asylum/100k
1 180
Höga initiala kostnader, långsam etablering. Ruist (ESO 2018:3): i genomsnitt 74 000 kr nettokostnad per år under en flyktings återstående livstid i Sverige (≈58 år), 53 000–94 000 kr beroende på integrationspotential; årsgenomsnitt över livet, inte en årsobservation.
Strict asylum, strong integration requirements
Empl.
68%
Fiscal
−146k
Asylum/100k
220
Requirements on language, self-sufficiency and time-limited residence permits. The Ministry of Finance's analysis of 2019 (revised September 2023) reports an average net expenditure of about DKK 103,000 per person for refugees and family members reunited with refugees (≈ SEK 146,000 at the Riksbank's 2019 annual average rate).
Points-based (skills-driven)
Empl.
78%
Fiscal
—
Asylum/100k
280
Express Entry selects labour migrants by education, age, language and work experience. The positive fiscal value refers to the entire points-selected immigration — Canada's refugee group is also fiscally negative.
Points-based + strict asylum handling
Empl.
75%
Fiscal
—
Asylum/100k
120
Low asylum volume and strong selection. The positive value applies to the Skilled Migration Program — Australia's refugee group is also fiscally negative.
Large asylum intake from 2015
Empl.
60%
Fiscal
—
Asylum/100k
950
Similar challenges to Sweden after 2015. IAB data show slow establishment, especially among women.
Tighter asylum + labour-market focus
Empl.
66%
Fiscal
—
Asylum/100k
470
van de Beek, Roodenburg, Hartog & Kreffer, Borderless Welfare State (2023), table 0.2: model-estimated net of −€475,000 per asylum migrant including the second generation, in 2016 euros. The authors' study using CBS microdata, not an official CPB or university estimate; not converted to SEK and not comparable with the annual values.
Fast-track introduction + language requirements
Empl.
65%
Fiscal
—
Asylum/100k
420
Statistics Norway's calculation (Holmøy & Strøm, Rapporter 15/2012; SSB comment 2015-11-18) is a macro scenario of annual effects per additional immigrant by region of origin, not a lifetime cost per refugee. No Norwegian lifetime amount is shown.
Lower volume, integration programme
Empl.
55%
Fiscal
—
Asylum/100k
380
Lower asylum volume than Sweden but worse employment. The language barrier is highlighted by VATT.
| Country | Model | Employment | Fiscal / year (not directly comparable) | Asylum / 100k | Requirements | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sweden | High asylum intake, low threshold | 58 % | −74,000 SEK/yr | 1 180 | Language: low | |
| Denmark | Strict asylum, strong integration requirements | 68 % | −146,000 SEK/yr | 220 | Language: high | |
| Canada | Points-based (skills-driven) | 78 % | — | 280 | Language: high · points | |
| Australia | Points-based + strict asylum handling | 75 % | — | 120 | Language: high · points | |
| Germany | Large asylum intake from 2015 | 60 % | — | 950 | Language: medium | |
| The Netherlands | Tighter asylum + labour-market focus | 66 % | — | 470 | Language: high | |
| Norway | Fast-track introduction + language requirements | 65 % | — | 420 | Language: medium | |
| Finland | Lower volume, integration programme | 55 % | — | 380 | Language: medium |
Two measures: 'Fiscal / year' is the net effect per person per year (taxes in minus benefits and public services out), only where the source reports an annual value; NO, NL, DE, FI, CA and AU are shown without an annual value and are excluded from the annual charts (for DE, FI, CA and AU no original table lay behind the earlier values). DK is the Danish Finance Ministry's 2019 value converted at the Riksbank's 2019 annual average rate; SE is Ruist's lifetime average per year. The NL source (van de Beek et al. 2023) reports a lifecycle net in 2016 euros and the NO source (SSB) a macro scenario; neither is converted or ranked here. An annual value multiplied by a number of years is an undiscounted sum, not a present value, and is therefore not shown. The studies use different methods, populations and years; the columns are not directly comparable.
In-depth analysis
Since 2015–2016 Denmark has implemented a series of sharp tightenings of its immigration policy. These include lower benefit levels for newcomers (integrationsydelse), stricter language and self-sufficiency requirements, so-called ghetto laws with special rules in vulnerable areas, and a more restrictive asylum policy with lower intake (Ministry of Immigration and Integration 2015–2024).
The result has been that Denmark has had a significantly lower asylum intake than Sweden over the same period. At the same time, employment rates among non-Western immigrants have developed better in Denmark than in Sweden according to several comparative studies (VIVE 2018, OECD International Migration Outlook 2023). Long-term costs per person have also been lower, partly due to lower benefit levels and stronger work incentives.
In a Swedish context, a "Danish model" would mean lower volumes of asylum immigration, stricter integration requirements from day one, lower benefits for newcomers and a more consistent deportation policy in cases of crime. In the simulator, this setting can be used to show how such changes could affect both direct costs and long-term effects, particularly in municipal finances and crime.
senast publicerade mätning (2019–2023 beroende på land) · procent sysselsatta · OECD
Sysselsättning bland flyktingar 5–7 år efter ankomst: 8 data points. Highest Kanada (78 procent sysselsatta), lowest Finland (55 procent sysselsatta). Full values are available in the data table below (senast publicerade mätning (2019–2023 beroende på land), OECD).
| Country | Kod | Sysselsatta 5–7 år efter ankomst (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | CA | 78 |
| Australia | AU | 75 |
| Denmark | DK | 68 |
| The Netherlands | NL | 66 |
| Norway | NO | 65 |
| Germany | DE | 60 |
| Sweden | SE | 58 |
| Finland | FI | 55 |
Observed published official statistics with no processing of our own
Method: Andel sysselsatta bland personer som beviljats skydd, mätt 5–7 år efter ankomst. Länderna använder delvis olika definitioner av flyktingstatus, sysselsättning och mätfönster; nivåerna visar storleksordning snarare än exakt rangordning.
Source: OECD — International Migration Outlook 2023 (accessed 2026-07-27) · SCB och nationella statistikmyndigheter (accessed 2026-07-27)
studiernas respektive mätår (2016–2024) · kronor per person och år (omräknat till SEK) · OECD
Fiskal nettoeffekt per person och år: 2 data points. Highest Sverige (-74,000 kronor per person och år (omräknat till SEK)), lowest Danmark (-146,000 kronor per person och år (omräknat till SEK)). Full values are available in the data table below (studiernas respektive mätår (2016–2024), OECD).
Reading note: The studies use different definitions (all foreign-born, refugees only, asylum cohorts), different time windows and different public-sector scope. The amounts are converted to SEK to show order of magnitude and direction — not to rank countries to the krona. For strict comparison, read each source report.
| Country | Kod | Fiskal nettoeffekt (kr/person och år) |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | SE | -74,000 |
| Denmark | DK | -146,000 |
Observed published official statistics with no processing of our own
Method: Nettoeffekt på offentliga finanser per person och år enligt nationella studier, omräknad till SEK. Studierna använder olika populationsavgränsningar (alla utrikes födda, enbart flyktingar, asylkohorter), olika tidsfönster och olika avgränsning av offentlig sektor. Beloppen visar riktning och storleksordning — inte en exakt rangordning.
Source: Konjunkturinstitutet / Ruist (SE) (accessed 2026-07-27) · VIVE (DK), StatCan (CA), Productivity Commission (AU), IAB (DE), CBS (NL), SSB (NO), VATT (FI) (accessed 2026-07-27)
procent sysselsatta (x) mot kronor per person och år (y) · OECD
Sysselsättning mot fiskal nettoeffekt — länderjämförelse: 8 data points. Highest Kanada (78 procent sysselsatta (x) mot kronor per person och år (y)), lowest Finland (55 procent sysselsatta (x) mot kronor per person och år (y)). Full values are available in the data table below (OECD).
The employment axis refers to refugees 5–7 years after arrival. The fiscal axis refers to the annual net effect per person — derived from national net-contribution studies. Note: Canada's and Australia's positive values refer to their points-selected total immigration; their refugee groups are fiscally negative like other countries'. Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands are reported for the refugee cohort.
| Country | Sysselsatta 5–7 år efter ankomst (%) | Fiskal nettoeffekt (kr/person och år) | Asylsökande per 100 000 invånare |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 58 | -74,000 | 1,180 |
| Denmark | 68 | -146,000 | 220 |
| Canada | 78 | — | 280 |
| Australia | 75 | — | 120 |
| Germany | 60 | — | 950 |
| The Netherlands | 66 | — | 470 |
| Norway | 65 | — | 420 |
| Finland | 55 | — | 380 |
Observed published official statistics with no processing of our own
Method: Varje punkt är ett land; punktstorleken speglar asylmottagande per 100 000 invånare. Sambandet är en korrelation mellan två indikatorer med olika källor och mätår — det visar mönster, inte orsakssamband, och antalet länder är för litet för statistisk inferens.
Source: OECD — International Migration Outlook 2023 (accessed 2026-07-27) · Eurostat — asylsökande per land (accessed 2026-07-27) · Nationella finanspolitiska studier (se fiskaldiagrammet) (accessed 2026-07-27)
Clearer requirements on language, self-sufficiency and time-limited residence permits produce higher employment and lower long-run costs. Asylum volume is also dramatically lower per capita.
Points-based systems prioritise education, language and employability. The result is a substantially better net fiscal contribution — and high employment from the start.
Countries with high asylum intake without strong requirements (Sweden and Germany) have seen large initial costs and slower integration. IAB data show that women's establishment is especially slow.
Several countries have better systems for compensating local authorities for actual costs. In Sweden, the flat-rate grant ends after the establishment period — after which municipalities alone bear the remaining costs.
Landsdjupdykning · 4 länder
För varje land: vad politiken är, vad utfallet visar, vad Sverige rimligen kan ta efter — och lika viktigt: vad utfallet inte säger. Vi skiljer arbetsmarknadsutfall från mer kontroversiella delar av migrationspolitiken.
Definitional difference · often overlooked
When we compare "foreign background" across countries, we rarely compare the same thing. Sweden uses one of Western Europe's narrowest measures. A broader definition would include more people in the second generation — where the overrepresentation in negative outcomes often remains.
| Country | Who is counted? | Second generation | Share of pop. | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sweden | Persons born abroad or Persons born in Sweden with two foreign-born parents | Only when both parents are foreign-born. Persons with one Swedish-born and one foreign-born parent are classed as having a Swedish background. | 27,7 % · 2025 | SCB — Personer med utländsk bakgrund (MIS 2002:3) ↗ |
| Denmark | Indvandrere (born abroad per the criterion above) or Efterkommere (born in Denmark to two parents who do not both meet the Danish-citizen-and-born-in-Denmark criterion) | Yes — 'efterkommere' (descendants) are reported as their own group, but only when neither parent is both a Danish citizen and born in Denmark. | 14,4 % · 1 januari 2022 | Danmarks Statistik — definition av indvandrere, efterkommere og personer med dansk oprindelse (2024-09-20) ↗ |
| Germany | Persons who themselves immigrated to Germany since 1950 or Persons born in Germany whose BOTH parents immigrated since 1950 | Yes — but only when BOTH parents immigrated since 1950. The third generation is not included. | 25,6 % · 2024 | Destatis — Hintergrundpapier: Einwanderungsgeschichte ↗ |
In-depth analysis → Definitions of foreign background · Western vs non-Western · Costs per cohort
Conclusion
The differences between countries mainly come down to selection, volume and integration requirements. Sweden ranks at the bottom among the compared countries on all three dimensions. Try for yourself how different models would affect the outcome:
Objective observations — not interpretations
How the numbers are counted — and what they do not cover
Agencies and research institutions behind this page
6
agencies/institutions
8
reports & studies
3
primary datasets
Short answers to what is most often discussed
Logical next steps if you want to understand the background
This is not a full socioeconomic analysis – only an estimate of direct public revenues and expenditures.
