Why is it so exceedingly difficult for host states to return irregular migrants to their countries of origin? Emphasizing the importance of including the viewpoints of both origin and destination countries, this article argues that there is a 'power switch' in the politicized practice of returning migrants from North to South: whereas immigration spells power and control on the destination side, in return processes, the command is reversed, with the Southern state functioning as gatekeeper. Based on interviews with Norwegian, Ethiopian and EU officials placed in Ethiopia, this article focuses on the bilateral return migration corridor between Norway and Ethiopia. Referencing the emerging constructivist strand of international relations studies of migration, we map and analyze the interplay and effects of converging and diverging interests and norms at the local, national, and international levels. The study reveals that while certain norms constrain the deportation of failed asylum seekers and migrants in both countries, there are several conflicting interests and norms between Norway and Ethiopia regarding return. Norway actively promotes return to protect its asylum regime and social welfare system, while Ethiopia benefits from diaspora remittances, seeks to avoid criticism from politically important diaspora communities and stresses national norms of state sovereignty.

In today's international migration scene, access to welfare rights is one of the central issues. The chapter discusses the interface between nation-state governance of immigration and the question of access to welfare rights, with a primary emphasis on Europe. This goal is achieved first by presenting some sociology-related theoretical perspectives. Gøsta Esping-Andersen's theory of 'Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism' is used as a main frame of reference for the analysis. Issues such as welfare state sustainability, inclusion, and cohesion are thereafter discussed. Finally, the chapter reviews some empirical examples around the world to highlight variation outside of Europe. The main argument of the chapter is that there is no unitary relationship between immigration and the welfare state worldwide. The impact of newcomers depends on the economic, institutional, and political features of particular welfare and labor regimes.

Since 2007, Scandinavia has emerged as a new destination for Romanian Roma engaging in circular migration for begging and street work. Using policy documents from parliamentary debates in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, survey data on Romanian migrants in Stockholm, Oslo, and Copenhagen, and qualitative fieldwork in Scandinavia and Romania, this article explores the dynamic relationship between Scandinavian policy responses and migrant selection and adaptations. First, we demonstrate how the Scandinavian countries differ in their approach to migration for begging as a policy problem, resulting in different contexts of reception. Second, we show that these different contexts of reception have given rise to differences in the selection and adaptations of migrant beggars and street workers in each of the three capital cities. Third, we hypothesize that the relationship between policy responses and migrant adaptations should be conceptualized as a process of cumulative causation, where pre-existing policy differences are reinforced through positive feedback.

Research on the 'civic turn' in European citizenship policies suggests that concerns over immigrant integration have fueled the restrictive development of citizenship policies in recent decades. However, few efforts have been made to explore the normative ideas underlying this development. Departing fromFavell's (1998)influential concept of 'philosophies of integration', this article draws on elite-interviews with top-level bureaucrats, politicians and citizenship experts in the Scandinavian countries and explores how ideas about nationhood and integration have influenced the divergence in citizenship policies in the region, and what overall purpose the policy-changes reflect. We find that, especially in Denmark, the gradual introduction of ever more demanding civic integration requirements appears to be a part of the broader aim of controlling the inflow of migrants and not to enhance the integration of those already present in the country. Conversely, the Swedish liberal approach to citizenship, which regularly has been analyzed as a steppingstone to societal integration, might in reality have been a reflection of benign neglect. In Norway, immigrant integration has clearly been part of the underlying rationale for changes in naturalization requirements, yet the control dimension have played an increasingly important role. These findings suggests that, although the citizenship institution remains important in nation states' efforts to solve their 'ethnic dilemmas', the underlying rationale behind policy-change is more multifaceted than previously understood.

Immigration represents one of the most contentious and complicated issues for social democracy in many national contexts. In Scandinavia, the social democratic parties have been particularly tormented, being split internally on central concerns related to immigration policy. Social democratic parties in Scandinavia have had a basically ambiguous relationship to the issue from the initiation of the era of ‘new immigration’. This chapter argues that this can be explained by the specifically strong attachment and ‘ownership’ of these parties to the Scandinavian welfare model, with its particular claims on a strong tax base and an orderly labour market. ‘Social democracy’ is dealt with mainly as an institutional and political entity, close to what goes as ‘The Nordic Model’ in the international literature. The chapter describes and analyses similarities and differences between the three Scandinavian countries, through a historical exposé of the period after the early 1970s; on the one hand, the institutional and normative prerequisites for social democracies in handling migration, and on the other hand, the way in which recent flows of migrants have influenced the very same social democracies. Theoretically, the chapter is drawing on conceptual tools from political economy, citizenship discourse and institutional theory.

The literature on citizenship policies is flourishing, yet we know little of which naturalisation requirements majorities and minorities find reasonable, and how they view existing citizenship regimes. Drawing on original survey data with young adults in Norway (N = 3535), comprising immigrants and descendants with origins from Iraq, Pakistan, Poland, Somalia and Turkey, as well as a non-immigrant majority group, this article examines whether perceptions of ideal citizenship criteria and assessments of Norway's current rules differ between groups. In terms of ideal citizenship criteria, we find a striking similarity across groups when looking at six different dimensions of citizenship policy. When merged into an index and estimated in a multivariate regression model, we find that both immigrants and descendants are significantly more liberal than natives are, yet the differences are small. When assessing the semi-strict citizenship regime in Norway, we find that immigrants are significantly more positive towards the current rules than natives. The results lend little support to recent work on 'strategic' and 'instrumental' citizenship and point instead to a close to universal conception of the terms of membership acquisition in Norway. This suggests that states may operate with moderate integration requirements while maintaining the legitimacy of the citizenship institution.

Geographical location certainly constitutes a factor that creates preconditions for immigration control. A territorial position directly bordering sending areas does increase the likelihood of being affected. There is, however, no mechanical relationship between geographical location and inflow intensity. The way in which geography becomes relevant depends on a number of other variables. History of immigration is important in two major ways. Firstly, tradition in terms of streams from particular areas or countries that have created migration 'bridges', do have a tendency to nurture itself. Migration control is exercised at different points along the migration route, which starts at the origin, goes through possible transit stations and leads to entry, settlement and possible naturalization in a destination country. The immigration policies of our case countries were for a long time ad hoc, reactive, short term and pragmatic.

The mechanisms of control, Grete Brochmann Germany's immigration policies and politics, Dietrich Thranhardt ideas, institutions and civil society - on the limits of French immigration control, James F. Hollifield immigration control without integration policy - an Austrian dilemma, Rainer Baubock migration control and minority policy - the case of the Netherlands, Hans van Amersfoort closing the doors to the Swedish welfare state, Tomas Hammar redrawing lines of control - the Norwegian welfare state dilemma, Grete Brochmann planning in the dark - the evolution of Italian control, Giuseppe Sciortino the emergence of migration control politics in Hungary, Kristof Tamas controlling immigration in Europe, Grete Brochmann.

This chapter deals with a specific part of research-based policy-making in the Norwegian context—the institution of Norwegian Official Commissions (Norges Offentlige Utredninger—NOU). This institution, which is a significant element of the consensual Norwegian governance, has since the 1970s increasingly been dominated by academics. The NOU tradition, with its high legitimacy within the polity, thus serves as a bridge between research and policy-making. The chapter uses two Commissions on the relationship between international migration and the sustainability of the national welfare model as cases, the first one with an emphasis on labour immigration, the second one on refugees. The chapter describes and discusses the political context in which they were commissioned as well as how they have impacted on public discussion and concrete reform processes in the aftermath. The two commissions can serve as examples of how research can contribute constructively in relation to policy-making on a particularly contentious issue.

The neighboring countries of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway represent three very similar societies that differ markedly with respect to naturalization policy. While the general trend of a civic turn has brought about some of Europe's strictest residence and citizenship requirements in Denmark, it has left the liberal Swedish policy largely untouched and the Norwegian somewhere in between the other two. How might such divergence in otherwise very similar societies be explained? This article investigates the role different conceptions of nationhood have played. It is argued that different conceptions of nationhood have mattered, but that the national differences have less to do with the normative content of nationhood than with how politicians tend to conceive of the integration process that newcomers must commit to in order to develop a strong sense of national belonging.