Sweden
Language: lowHigh asylum intake, low threshold
Empl.
58%
Fiscal
−74k
Asylum/100k
1 180
High initial costs, slow establishment. Ruist 2018: approx. SEK −74,000/year per refugee over their lifetime.
International comparison · 8 countries
How do other countries do it?
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?
At a glance
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.
Comparison table
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.
Denmark
Language: highStrict asylum, strong integration requirements
Empl.
68%
Fiscal
−165k
Asylum/100k
220
Requirements on language, self-sufficiency and time-limited residence permits. The Ministry of Finance's annual report (2023) shows DKK −109,000/year for refugees/asylum — the most detailed Nordic reporting.
Canada
Language: highPoints-based (skills-driven)
Empl.
78%
Fiscal
+35k
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.
Australia
Language: highPoints-based + strict asylum handling
Empl.
75%
Fiscal
+28k
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.
Germany
Language: mediumLarge asylum intake from 2015
Empl.
60%
Fiscal
−55k
Asylum/100k
950
Similar challenges to Sweden after 2015. IAB data show slow establishment, especially among women.
The Netherlands
Language: highTighter asylum + labour-market focus
Empl.
66%
Fiscal
−115k
Asylum/100k
470
van de Beek 2021 (UvA/CPB methodology): −€600,000 lifetime per asylum migrant on average. The study is contested, but the result falls in the same range as Ruist/FM after adjustment.
Norway
Language: mediumFast-track introduction + language requirements
Empl.
65%
Fiscal
−145k
Asylum/100k
420
SSB report 2023/22 (Holmøy & Strøm): −9.1 million NOK lifetime per refugee, converted to ≈ SEK −145,000/year. Labour migration is fiscally positive (+0.8 to +2.4 million NOK lifetime).
Finland
Language: mediumLower volume, integration programme
Empl.
55%
Fiscal
−60k
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) | Lifetime net | Asylum / 100k | Requirements | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sweden | High asylum intake, low threshold | 58 % | −74,000 SEK/yr | −4 M SEK | 1 180 | Language: low | |
| Denmark | Strict asylum, strong integration requirements | 68 % | −165,000 SEK/yr | −10 M SEK* | 220 | Language: high | |
| Canada | Points-based (skills-driven) | 78 % | +35,000 SEK/yr | +2 M SEK* | 280 | Language: high · points | |
| Australia | Points-based + strict asylum handling | 75 % | +28,000 SEK/yr | +2 M SEK* | 120 | Language: high · points | |
| Germany | Large asylum intake from 2015 | 60 % | −55,000 SEK/yr | −3 M SEK* | 950 | Language: medium | |
| The Netherlands | Tighter asylum + labour-market focus | 66 % | −115,000 SEK/yr | −7 M SEK | 470 | Language: high | |
| Norway | Fast-track introduction + language requirements | 65 % | −145,000 SEK/yr | −9 M SEK | 420 | Language: medium | |
| Finland | Lower volume, integration programme | 55 % | −60,000 SEK/yr | −4 M SEK* | 380 | Language: medium |
Two measures: 'Fiscal / year' is net effect per person per year (taxes in minus benefits and public services out). 'Lifetime net' sums the same over an adult lifetime (NPV). SE, NL and NO report lifetime directly; DK, DE, FI, CA and AU (*) are methodologically derived from annual value × 60 adult years — directional indicator, not source-reported. Studies use different methods, populations and years; the columns are not directly comparable.
In depth
The Danish model
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.
Sysselsättning bland flyktingar 5–7 år efter ankomst
senast publicerade mätning (2019–2023 beroende på land) · procent sysselsatta · OECD
Sysselsättning bland flyktingar 5–7 år efter ankomst: Sysselsatta 5–7 år efter ankomst (%) moves from 78 (Kanada) to 55 (Finland) — down 23 percentage points. Full values are available in the data table below (senast publicerade mätning (2019–2023 beroende på land), OECD).
The chart is drawn once the page has loaded — the same data is available in the table tab.
AU AustralienCA KanadaDE TysklandDK DanmarkFI FinlandNL NederländernaNO NorgeSE Sverige
| Land | Kod | Sysselsatta 5–7 år efter ankomst (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Kanada | CA | 78 |
| Australien | AU | 75 |
| Danmark | DK | 68 |
| Nederländerna | NL | 66 |
| Norge | NO | 65 |
| Tyskland | DE | 60 |
| Sverige | SE | 58 |
| Finland | FI | 55 |
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)
Fiscal net effect per person and year
studiernas respektive mätår (2016–2024) · kronor per person och år (omräknat till SEK) · OECD
Fiskal nettoeffekt per person och år: Fiskal nettoeffekt (kr/person och år) moves from 35,000 (Kanada) to -165,000 (Danmark) — down 200,000 kronor per person och år. 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.
The chart is drawn once the page has loaded — the same data is available in the table tab.
AU AustralienCA KanadaDE TysklandDK DanmarkFI FinlandNL NederländernaNO NorgeSE Sverige
| Land | Kod | Fiskal nettoeffekt (kr/person och år) |
|---|---|---|
| Kanada | CA | 35 000 |
| Australien | AU | 28 000 |
| Tyskland | DE | −55 000 |
| Finland | FI | −60 000 |
| Sverige | SE | −74 000 |
| Nederländerna | NL | −115 000 |
| Norge | NO | −145 000 |
| Danmark | DK | −165 000 |
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)
Sysselsättning mot fiskal nettoeffekt — länderjämförelse
procent sysselsatta (x) mot kronor per person och år (y) · OECD
Sysselsättning mot fiskal nettoeffekt — länderjämförelse: Sysselsatta 5–7 år efter ankomst (%) moves from 58 (Sverige) to 55 (Finland) — down 3 percentage points. Full values are available in the data table below (OECD).
The chart is drawn once the page has loaded — the same data is available in the table tab.
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.
| Land | Sysselsatta 5–7 år efter ankomst (%) | Fiskal nettoeffekt (kr/person och år) | Asylsökande per 100 000 invånare |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sverige | 58 | −74 000 | 1 180 |
| Danmark | 68 | −165 000 | 220 |
| Kanada | 78 | 35 000 | 280 |
| Australien | 75 | 28 000 | 120 |
| Tyskland | 60 | −55 000 | 950 |
| Nederländerna | 66 | −115 000 | 470 |
| Norge | 65 | −145 000 | 420 |
| Finland | 55 | −60 000 | 380 |
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)
Key takeaways
Denmark: clear requirements work
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.
Canada & Australia: selection matters
Points-based systems prioritise education, language and employability. The result is a substantially better net fiscal contribution — and high employment from the start.
Germany: a parallel to Sweden
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.
Municipal level
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
Vad gör de — och vad kan Sverige faktiskt lära?
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
Sweden's definition is narrower than Germany's
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.
Sweden
- Who is counted?
- Persons born abroad or Persons born in Sweden with two foreign-born parents
- Second generation
- Only when both parents are foreign-born. Persons with one Swedish-born and one foreign-born parent are classed as having a Swedish background.
- Share of pop.
- 26,5 % · 2023
Denmark
- Who is counted?
- 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)
- Second generation
- Yes — 'efterkommere' (descendants) are reported as their own group, but only when neither parent is both a Danish citizen and born in Denmark.
- Share of pop.
- 14,4 % · 1 januari 2022
Germany
- Who is counted?
- Persons who themselves immigrated to Germany since 1950 or Persons born in Germany whose BOTH parents immigrated since 1950
- Second generation
- Yes — but only when BOTH parents immigrated since 1950. The third generation is not included.
- Share of pop.
- 25,6 % · 2024
| 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. | 26,5 % · 2023 | 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 → Definitions of foreign background · Western vs non-Western · Costs per cohort
Conclusion
Immigration can be run with significantly lower costs
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:
What does the data show?
Objective observations — not interpretations
- The employment gap 5–7 years after arrival is smallest in Canada and Australia (points-based selection).
- Denmark and the Netherlands have a narrower gap than Sweden after tightened rules in 2015–2022.
- Sweden and Germany still have the largest gap in the EU for the refugee group.
- Net fiscal effect: Canada/Australia positive (the total), Denmark ≈ zero, Sweden/Germany/Finland negative.
Definitions
How the numbers are counted — and what they do not cover
- Employment gap
- Difference in employment rate between the refugee group and the native reference, in percentage points.
- Fiscal net effect
- Tax revenue minus public spending for a group over a period, expressed per person-year or as lifetime net (NPV).
- Points-based selection
- Canada and Australia: applicants scored on education, language, occupation and age. Only those above the threshold receive a work permit.
- Resettlement refugee
- Person selected abroad on UNHCR recommendation and admitted under the country's annual quota.
- Asylum per 100,000
- Asylum applications per 100,000 inhabitants — normalises for country size.
Primary sources
Agencies and research institutions behind this page
6
agencies/institutions
8
reports & studies
3
primary datasets
Frequently asked questions
Short answers to what is most often discussed
Partly. Employment gaps use OECD definitions (5–7 years post-arrival) and are comparable. Fiscal net contribution is measured in each country's national accounts and converted to SEK — levels are comparable but methodological choices differ. Use as orders of magnitude.
Related topics
Logical next steps if you want to understand the background
How the figures should — and should not — be interpreted
- The analyses are static cross-sectional or lifecycle calculations based on register data.
- Indirect and dynamic effects (wages, employment of the native-born, growth, innovation, crime, housing market, etc.) are not included.
- Future outcomes are uncertain and rely on assumptions about employment, incomes and welfare consumption.
- The net contribution improved markedly from 2017 onwards — lower refugee inflow, better integration and continued labour migration.
- Refugees' contribution is strongly negative for the first 10–15 years, turns positive after about 15–30 years, and negative again after about 40 years due to pensions.
This is not a full socioeconomic analysis – only an estimate of direct public revenues and expenditures.