## _wp15254

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_wp15254](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/_wp15254.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/_wp15254.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/_wp15254.pdf.json)

---

### Introduction
- Increasing migration to the Nordic region is challenging adaptability of Nordic labor market institutions.
- Net migration inflows as a share of the population have increased significantly since the mid-2000s, driven largely by EU enlargements (NMS).
- Migration benefits:
  - About 80 percent of the Nordic labor force growth during recent years has come from increases in the foreign-born population.
  - Eurostat estimates the Nordic working age population would shrink by more than 10 percent by 2050 without continued migration at the current pace.
  - Back-of-the-envelope: real GDP in the average Nordic country would be about 2½ percent higher by 2020 compared to a scenario of no further migration inflows.
  - Swedish data: migration contributes to relaxing the economy’s unemployment-inflation tradeoff, possibly by dampening wage growth and/or increasing the elasticity of labor supply.
- Short-run costs:
  - An increase in migration is associated with a subsequent rise in unemployment in the host country, at least initially, with larger impacts on the young and the low skilled.
- Role of policy and institutions:
  - Active labor market policies (ALMP) and greater scope for wage differentiation can help alleviate differences in unemployment between foreign- and native-born workers.
  - Crude policy experiment: reducing the degree of wage compression in Nordic countries to the OECD average is estimated to reduce foreign-born unemployment by over 10 percentage points for the average Nordic country—enough to close the observed foreign-native unemployment gap.

### Patterns of Migration
- General patterns:
  - Norway has experienced the largest wave of immigration in the Nordic region, followed by Sweden and Denmark; Finland has a relatively small immigrant population but rising inflows since the early 2000s.
  - Migration flows reversed briefly during the global financial crisis, then picked up again.
- Composition of inflows:
  - Intra-Nordic flows are significant and quite stable.
  - Migrants from non-Nordic OECD countries account for a substantial share of annual inflows, especially in Denmark.
  - EU enlargements in 2004 and 2007 triggered a surge of labor immigration from New Member States (NMS), especially to Norway (Poland and Lithuania).
  - Sweden has a more sizable role for asylum seekers relative to other Nordics.
  - Finland receives a substantial fraction from Estonia and Russia.
- Educational composition (2000–2010):
  - Shares of “highly-educated” immigrants (ISCED levels 5 or 6) increased between 2000 and 2010 in all Nordic countries except Finland.
  - Finland and Norway: shares of “low” education (ISCED 0/1/2) immigrants have also increased.
  - Denmark and Norway: relatively even shares across skill groups.
  - Sweden: immigrant population more concentrated on medium-skilled (ISCED 3/4).
  - Finland: immigrant population more concentrated on lower-skilled.

### Drivers of Migration — Empirical Framework
- Baseline empirical model follows Ortega and Peri (2012) and Mayda (2010), estimating bilateral net migration rate (100*(inflows – outflows)/host population) with:
  - Host–source differentials: output gap differentials, unemployment gap differentials, real wage differentials, unemployment benefit generosity (average replacement rate).
  - One-year lags of differentials are used.
  - Controls: existing immigrant stock (network effect) and source-country demographics (share of young people).
  - Country pair fixed effects and year fixed effects included.
- Data windows:
  - Intra-Nordic estimation sample: six country pairs, 1995–2012 (OECD International Migration Database).
  - EU (non-Nordic) estimation sample: 22 EU source countries × 4 host Nordics = 88 country pairs, 1995–2012.

### Intra-Nordic Migration — Findings
- Magnitudes and patterns:
  - Bilateral net flows average about 0.01 percent of population every year.
- Cyclical factors:
  - Cyclical differences (output gap or unemployment gap) explain a significant portion—over a quarter—of the annual variation in intra-Nordic migration.
  - Example: a one standard deviation increase in the unemployment gap in Norway relative to Sweden would trigger a 0.01 percentage point—or 1½ standard deviation—reduction in the net migration flow (share of population) from Sweden to Norway.
- Structural factors:
  - Differences in real wage levels are a strong predictor of net migration.
  - Size of the young population in the source country is an important determinant.
  - Immigrant stock variable is either statistically insignificant or has the wrong sign (network effects weaker within Nordics).
  - Differences in unemployment insurance regimes across Nordics tend to be small and do not explain intra-regional migration.
- Model performance:
  - Parsimonious model explains close to half of observed annual variation in intra-Nordic bilateral migration flows.
  - GLS specifications correcting for panel-specific autocorrelation produce results broadly similar to OLS.

### Migration from Non‑Nordic EU Countries — Findings
- Cyclical forces:
  - Output gap differentials play a role but the estimated elasticity is much smaller than for intra-Nordic migration.
  - Model with output gap differentials alone explains about 5 percent of observed variation (Column 1).
  - Elasticity increased substantially after accession of the NMS to the EU labor market.
- Structural factors:
  - Strong network (path-dependence) effects: previous settlement patterns significantly predict subsequent flows.
  - Migration flows higher from countries with a younger population.
  - EU membership/free labor mobility boosts net migration rates.
  - Migrants—particularly from NMS—respond to wage gaps and more generous unemployment insurance in the host country.
- Model performance:
  - Baseline model (Column 2 of Table 4) explains about 40 percent of observed annual variation in bilateral flows to the Nordics.
  - Model prediction is relatively more accurate for migration from non-NMS EU countries than for NMS countries.
  - For NMS labor migration, model explains only part of the pre-crisis surge and crisis reversal, suggesting other (possibly non-economic) factors at work.
- Robustness:
  - GLS specification allowing for serial correlation produces similar results.

### Labor Market Impact of Migration — Demographics and Contributions
- Recent additions:
  - Recent additions to the Nordic labor force (about 80 percent on average for the 2010–14 period) were foreign-born.
- Eurostat projection:
  - Without continued migration the total working age population in the Nordic region would shrink by a cumulative 5 percent by 2030 and by over 10 percent by 2050.
- Finland:
  - The total dependency ratio is projected to increase by more than 20 percentage points between now and 2035 (OECD, 2012).
  - Relatively low labor force participation rate among older workers (aged 55-64) compared to other Nordics.

### Long-run Output Implications of Continued Migration
- Back-of-the-envelope production-function illustration: real GDP for the average Nordic country would be about 2.5 percent higher by 2020 and 7 percent higher by 2030 compared to a scenario without continued migration.
- Estimated output contributions by country (Percent, relative to no migration scenario):
  - Denmark: By 2020 1.4; By 2030 4.5
  - Finland: By 2020 1.8; By 2030 5.4
  - Norway: By 2020 4.4; By 2030 10.2
  - Sweden: By 2020 2.2; By 2030 7.5
  - Average Nordic: By 2020 2.5; By 2030 6.9
- Caveat: these estimates assume other long-run effects of migration (e.g., on total factor productivity, capital accumulation, employment and labor force participation rates) are negligible.

### Short-run Cyclical Effects and Inflation Dynamics (Box 1 — Evidence from Sweden)
- Migrant labor supply is cyclically responsive: migrants tend to come when job opportunities are ample, take temporary/lower-wage jobs, and may return home when jobs are scarce—mitigating overheating and unemployment impacts during downturns.
- Theoretical channels: increased elasticity of labor supply and dampened wage growth can dampen the response of inflation to domestic economic activity (flatter short-run Phillips curve).
- Box 1 — Sweden quarterly model (1998Q1-2014Q4):
  - A one percent increase in the migrant labor force is associated with a reduction in the quarterly inflation rate by 0.26 percentage points (based on coefficient estimates in Column 3).
  - Migration also makes inflation dynamics less responsive to cyclical output developments (a flatter Phillips curve).
  - Illustration assumption: 5% quarterly growth rate in the active immigrant population for sensitivity figure.

### Labor Market Outcomes for Migrants and Institutional Influences
- Migrants experience significantly higher unemployment than natives.
- Non-Nordic immigrants tend to be younger and less educated than natives; foreign qualifications among highly educated migrants are less likely to be accepted by Nordic employers.
- Sweden and Finland: unemployment rates among the low skilled were over 15 percent in 2014.
- Sweden: foreign-native unemployment gap of 10 percentage points in 2013.
- All Nordic countries have higher ratios of low-skill unemployment to medium-skill unemployment than the OECD average.
- Institutional contributors:
  - Strong unions and collective bargaining yield wage stability and compressed wage structures (high wage floors).
  - High wage floors can raise costs in low-skill–intensive sectors, reducing output and employment in those sectors.
  - Generous social supports raise reservation wages:
    - Finland: highest net replacement rate for long term unemployment among the four Nordic countries, with a long duration—currently at 500 days.
    - Norway: spends close to 6 percent of GDP on disability and sickness benefits (highest among OECD).
  - Sweden: asymmetry in employment protection (high protection for regular workers, low for temporary workers) associated with labor market duality and higher incidence of non-permanent contracts among lower skilled workers.

### Quantitative Assessment — Cross-country Panel Evidence
- Estimation framework: baseline OLS panel and dynamic GMM (Arellano and Bond) over 22 advanced OECD countries, 1995–2012, relating unemployment to lagged share of migrants in the labor force and controls.
- OLS baseline results (sample: 22 OECD countries, 1995-2012):
  - A one percentage point increase in the migrant share of the labor force is estimated to increase the overall unemployment rate by 0.25 percentage points (Column 1).
  - Impacts by subgroup (examples):
    - Foreign born unemployment: 0.371 [0.153]**
    - Native-born unemployment: 0.232 [0.113]*
    - Youth unemployment: 0.525 [0.204]**
    - Low skilled: 0.330 [0.109]***
    - Medium skilled: 0.270 [0.144]*
    - High skilled: 0.058 [0.121]
  - Output gap coefficients: examples -0.563 [0.064]***, -0.763 [0.105]***, -0.504 [0.071]***
- Dynamic GMM results (migration instrumented with lags 2 to 4):
  - A one percentage point increase in the migrant share is estimated to increase overall unemployment by 0.15 percentage points (Total: 0.148 [0.031]***).
  - Persistence: lagged dependent variable coefficient 0.626 [0.051]*** implies impacts last for a few years.
  - Subgroup examples (GMM):
    - Foreign-born: 0.199 [0.091]**
    - Native-born: 0.102 [0.043]**
    - Youth: 0.212 [0.085]**
    - Low skilled: 0.168 [0.092]*
    - Medium skilled: 0.137 [0.047]***
    - High skilled: 0.097 [0.039]**
- Interpretation:
  - Magnitudes differ by specification; effects vary substantially across countries and depend on relative skill distributions.

### Spatial Correlations Approach — Danish Municipal Evidence (Box 2)
- Spatial distribution and instrument:
  - Immigrants unevenly distributed across Denmark: median municipality ~3,000 immigrants; Copenhagen >100,000 immigrants and about one-fifth of the Danish population.
  - Shift-share instrument (Card, 2001) used: nationwide migration inflows distributed across municipalities according to initial distribution of immigrants (e.g., 1980).
  - Correlation between proxy series and actual inflows is about 0.6.
- IV diagnostics and estimation:
  - Annual data for 95 municipalities over 2000–12; growth of real household disposable income used to control local cyclical conditions.
  - First-stage F-statistic for an excluded instrument: 9.8 (p-value 0.0023).
  - IV correction increases the estimated coefficient on migration relative to OLS.
- Short-run municipal impact:
  - A one standard deviation increase in migration inflows (1.2 percentage points, share of municipal population) raises the municipal unemployment rate by about 1 percentage point (for the municipal population) in the short run.

### Policy and Institutions — Cross-country Panel Evidence
- Panel: 18 advanced OECD countries for 1995–2012; country and year fixed effects.
- Key findings:
  - Wage structure, ALMP spending, and EPL design matter for foreign-born unemployment.
  - A less compressed wage distribution (higher wage dispersion) and higher spending per unemployed on activation measures are associated with lower foreign-born unemployment rates.
    - Example magnitude: a one standard deviation increase in the 90th/10th percentile wage ratio is estimated to reduce the foreign-born unemployment rate by 5.5 percentage points.
  - Greater asymmetry in strictness of employment protection between regular and temporary contracts (labor market duality) is associated with higher foreign-born unemployment.
  - Other policies—unemployment benefits, disability pensions, labor tax wedge—do not show a statistically significant impact on immigrant unemployment in this analysis, although they influence native outcomes (e.g., higher unemployment benefit replacement rate associated with higher native-born unemployment).
  - Wage dispersion and ALMP spending also reduce native-born unemployment, but estimated effects on foreign-born unemployment are much higher; as a result, the foreign-native unemployment gap is narrowed when wage dispersion is higher or ALMP spending is larger.
- Policy simulations:
  - Increasing Nordic wage dispersion (90th/10th percentile wage ratio) to the average OECD level is estimated to reduce the equilibrium foreign-born unemployment rate by:
    - Over 10 percentage points for the average Nordic country.
    - 12 percentage points in Sweden.
  - ALMP spending:
    - The model suggests the average foreign-born unemployment rate across the Nordics would have been about 2.2 percentage points higher if ALMP spending were reduced to the average OECD level.
  - Employment protection asymmetry:
    - If Sweden were to move to the OECD value of EPL asymmetry, its equilibrium foreign-born unemployment rate would be reduced by 3.4 percentage points.

### Policy Recommendations and Reform Directions
- Wage flexibility:
  - Fine-tune collective bargaining to allow more differentiation across sectors and permit wage agreements that better reflect individual productivity, firm-specific factors, and local demand.
  - Maintain ALMP to close wage-productivity gaps (e.g., skill building, direct wage subsidies), recognizing limits to ALMP capacity and fiscal costs.
  - Particular relevance for Sweden given its acute unemployment among vulnerable groups and greater scope for increased wage flexibility.
- Active labor market policies (ALMP):
  - Prioritize and better target ALMP—emphasize workplace training and job matching services.
  - Tailor active programs to needs of different groups (vocationally disabled, economic immigrants, older/younger workers).
- Employment protection:
  - Reduce asymmetry between permanent and temporary contracts to alleviate labor market duality and its adverse consequences for immigrants.
- Social support design:
  - Strike balance between protection and work incentives (e.g., intensified activation as a condition for benefit eligibility).
- Cautions:
  - Estimates sensitive to uncertainties associated with structural policy effects on unemployment.
  - Simulated policy changes may entail fiscal costs (e.g., higher welfare payments) and require consideration of complementarity and sequencing.

*Source: _wp15254 - ANNEX FIGURES (IMF working paper content provided)*

### REFERENCES ___________________________________________________________28

### _wp15254 - REFERENCES ___________________________________________________________28

### Boxes
- 1. Migration and Inflation Dynamics: Evidence from Sweden  _______________________15
- 2. The Labor Market Impact of Migration in Denmark: A Spatial Correlations Approach __21

### Figures
- 1. Stock and Flows of Migrants to Nordic Countries ________________________________6
- 2. Characteristics of Immigration to the Nordics ___________________________________7
- 3. Patterns of Bilateral Intra-Nordic Migration _____________________________________8
- 4. Intra-Nordic Net Migration—Actual and Predicted   _____________________________11
- 5. EU Migration—Actual and Predicted  ________________________________________12
- 6. The Demographic Benefits of Migration  ______________________________________13
- 7. Labor Market Outcomes of Immigrants _______________________________________17
- 8. Wage Structure in the Nordic Countries _______________________________________18

### Tables
- 1. Summary Statistics—Intra-Nordic Migration ___________________________________31
- 2. Drivers of Intra-Nordic Migration  ___________________________________________31
- 3. Summary Statistics—Non-Nordic EU Migration ________________________________32
- 4. Drivers of Non-Nordic EU Migration _________________________________________32
- 5. Impact of Migration on Unemployment—OLS Static Results ______________________33
- 6. Impact of Migration on Unemployment—GMM Dynamic Results __________________33
- 7. Impact of Policy and Institutions on Immigrant Unemployment ____________________34

### Annexes
- I. The Nordic Labor Market Model and its Performance ____________________________35
- II. Collective Bargaining in the Nordic countries __________________________________39
- III. Recent Labor Market Reforms in the Nordic Countries __________________________41
- IV. Integrating Immigrants into the Nordic Labor Market ___________________________43

*Source: _wp15254 - REFERENCES ___________________________________________________________28*

### ANNEX FIGURES

### ANNEX FIGURES

### Introduction
- Increasing migration to the Nordic region is challenging adaptability of Nordic labor market institutions.
- Net migration inflows as a share of the population have increased significantly since the mid-2000s, driven largely by EU enlargements (NMS).
- Migration benefits:
  - About 80 percent of the Nordic labor force growth during recent years has come from increases in the foreign-born population.
  - Eurostat estimates the Nordic working age population would shrink by more than 10 percent by 2050 without continued migration at the current pace.
  - Back-of-the-envelope: real GDP in the average Nordic country would be about 2½ percent higher by 2020 compared to a scenario of no further migration inflows.
  - Swedish data: migration contributes to relaxing the economy’s unemployment-inflation tradeoff, possibly by dampening wage growth and/or increasing the elasticity of labor supply.
- Short-run costs:
  - An increase in migration is associated with a subsequent rise in unemployment in the host country, at least initially, with larger impacts on the young and the low skilled.
- Role of policy and institutions:
  - Active labor market policies (ALMP) and greater scope for wage differentiation can help alleviate differences in unemployment between foreign- and native-born workers.
  - Crude policy experiment: reducing the degree of wage compression in Nordic countries to the OECD average is estimated to reduce foreign-born unemployment by over 10 percentage points for the average Nordic country—enough to close the observed foreign-native unemployment gap.

*Source: _wp15254 - ANNEX FIGURES (IMF working paper content provided)*

### Patterns of Migration
- General patterns:
  - Norway has experienced the largest wave of immigration in the Nordic region, followed by Sweden and Denmark; Finland has a relatively small immigrant population but rising inflows since the early 2000s.
  - Migration flows reversed briefly during the global financial crisis, then picked up again.
- Composition of inflows:
  - Intra-Nordic flows are significant and quite stable.
  - Migrants from non-Nordic OECD countries account for a substantial share of annual inflows, especially in Denmark.
  - EU enlargements in 2004 and 2007 triggered a surge of labor immigration from New Member States (NMS), especially to Norway (Poland and Lithuania).
  - Sweden has a more sizable role for asylum seekers relative to other Nordics.
  - Finland receives a substantial fraction from Estonia and Russia.
- Educational composition (2000–2010):
  - Shares of “highly-educated” immigrants (ISCED levels 5 or 6) increased between 2000 and 2010 in all Nordic countries except Finland.
  - Finland and Norway: shares of “low” education (ISCED 0/1/2) immigrants have also increased.
  - Denmark and Norway: relatively even shares across skill groups.
  - Sweden: immigrant population more concentrated on medium-skilled (ISCED 3/4).
  - Finland: immigrant population more concentrated on lower-skilled.

*Source: _wp15254 - ANNEX FIGURES (IMF working paper content provided)*

### Drivers of Migration — Empirical Framework
- Baseline empirical model follows Ortega and Peri (2012) and Mayda (2010), estimating bilateral net migration rate (100*(inflows – outflows)/host population) with:
  - Host–source differentials capturing pull–push effects: output gap differentials, unemployment gap differentials, real wage differentials, unemployment benefit generosity (average replacement rate).
  - One-year lags of differentials are used.
  - Controls include existing immigrant stock (network effect) and source-country demographics (share of young people).
  - Country pair fixed effects and year fixed effects included.
- Data windows:
  - Intra-Nordic estimation sample: six country pairs, 1995–2012 (OECD International Migration Database).
  - EU (non-Nordic) estimation sample: 22 EU source countries × 4 host Nordics = 88 country pairs, 1995–2012.

*Source: _wp15254 - ANNEX FIGURES (IMF working paper content provided)*

### Intra-Nordic Migration — Findings
- Magnitudes and patterns:
  - Bilateral net flows average about 0.01 percent of population every year.
- Cyclical factors:
  - Cyclical differences (output gap or unemployment gap) explain a significant portion—over a quarter—of the annual variation in intra-Nordic migration (relative business cycle positions matter).
  - Example: a one standard deviation increase in the unemployment gap in Norway relative to Sweden would trigger a 0.01 percentage point—or 1½ standard deviation—reduction in the net migration flow (measured as a share of population) from Sweden to Norway.
- Structural factors:
  - Differences in real wage levels are a strong predictor of net migration.
  - Size of the young population in the source country is an important determinant (younger people are more likely to migrate).
  - Immigrant stock variable is either statistically insignificant or has the wrong sign (network effects weaker within Nordics).
  - Differences in unemployment insurance regimes across Nordics tend to be small and do not explain intra-regional migration.
- Model performance:
  - Parsimonious model explains close to half of observed annual variation in intra-Nordic bilateral migration flows.
  - GLS specifications correcting for panel-specific autocorrelation produce results broadly similar to OLS.

*Source: _wp15254 - ANNEX FIGURES (IMF working paper content provided)*

### Migration from Non‑Nordic EU Countries — Findings
- Cyclical forces:
  - Output gap differentials continue to play a role in shaping migration from EU countries to the Nordics, but the estimated elasticity is much smaller than for intra-Nordic migration.
  - Model with output gap differentials alone explains about 5 percent of observed variation (Column 1).
  - Elasticity increased substantially after accession of the NMS to the EU labor market (Columns 3 and 4).
- Structural factors:
  - Strong network (path-dependence) effects: previous settlement patterns significantly predict subsequent flows.
  - Migration flows higher from countries with a younger population.
  - EU membership/free labor mobility boosts net migration rates.
  - Migrants—particularly from NMS—respond to wage gaps and more generous unemployment insurance in the host country.
- Model performance:
  - Baseline model (Column 2 of Table 4) explains about 40 percent of observed annual variation in bilateral flows to the Nordics.
  - Model prediction is relatively more accurate for migration from non-NMS EU countries than for NMS countries.
  - For NMS labor migration, model explains only part of the pre-crisis surge and crisis reversal, suggesting other (possibly non-economic) factors at work.
- Robustness:
  - GLS specification allowing for serial correlation produces similar results (Column 5).

*Source: _wp15254 - ANNEX FIGURES (IMF working paper content provided)*

### Labor Market Impact of Migration
- Role for labor force growth and demographics:
  - Migration contributes to maintaining labor force growth in the face of adverse medium and long run demographic trends.
  - Between the late 1990s and 2014, the share of foreign-born workers in the total active population in the Nordics has more than doubled (figure reference in source).
- Short-run labor market effects (cross-country evidence):
  - An increase in migration is associated with a subsequent rise in unemployment in the host country, particularly affecting youth and low-skilled workers.
- Policy and institutional implications:
  - ALMP and greater scope for wage differentiation can reduce foreign-native unemployment differences.
  - Crude policy experiment: reducing wage compression to the OECD average would lower foreign-born unemployment by over 10 percentage points for the average Nordic country, sufficient to close observed foreign-native unemployment gap.
  - Allowing more scope for wages to adjust—especially at the lower end of the wage distribution—and continued ALMP support can aid immigrant integration into productive employment.

*Source: _wp15254 - ANNEX FIGURES (IMF working paper content provided)*

*Source: _wp15254 - ANNEX FIGURES (content excerpt provided from the IMF working paper).*

### 6.6 percent. Although this share is still low compared to some other advanced economies

### _wp15254 - 6.6 percent. Although this share is still low compared to some other advanced economies

### Demographic contributions and projections
- Recent additions to the Nordic labor force (about 80 percent on average for the 2010–14 period) were foreign-born.
- Eurostat projection: without continued migration the total working age population in the Nordic region would shrink by a cumulative 5 percent by 2030 and by over 10 percent by 2050.
- Finland: the total dependency ratio is projected to increase by more than 20 percentage points between now and 2035 (OECD, 2012).
- Finland: relatively low labor force participation rate among older workers (aged 55-64) compared to other Nordics.

### Long-run output implications of continued migration
- Back-of-the-envelope production-function illustration: real GDP for the average Nordic country would be about 2.5 percent higher by 2020 and 7 percent higher by 2030 compared to a scenario without continued migration.
- Estimated output contributions by country (Percent, relative to no migration scenario):
  - Denmark: By 2020 1.4; By 2030 4.5
  - Finland: By 2020 1.8; By 2030 5.4
  - Norway: By 2020 4.4; By 2030 10.2
  - Sweden: By 2020 2.2; By 2030 7.5
  - Average Nordic: By 2020 2.5; By 2030 6.9
- Caveat: these estimates assume other long-run effects of migration (e.g., on total factor productivity, capital accumulation, employment and labor force participation rates) are negligible.

### Short-run cyclical effects and inflation dynamics
- Migrant labor supply is cyclically responsive: migrants tend to come when job opportunities are ample, take temporary/lower-wage jobs, and may return home when jobs are scarce—mitigating overheating and unemployment impacts during downturns.
- Theoretical channels: increased elasticity of labor supply and dampened wage growth can dampen the response of inflation to domestic economic activity (flatter short-run Phillips curve).
- Box 1 — Evidence from Sweden:
  - Quarterly model over 1998Q1-2014Q4 augments a Phillips curve with migration (growth rate of the active immigrant population).
  - Estimated effect: a one percent increase in the migrant labor force is associated with a reduction in the quarterly inflation rate by 0.26 percentage points (based on coefficient estimates in Column 3).
  - Migration also makes inflation dynamics less responsive to cyclical output developments (a flatter Phillips curve).
  - Illustration assumption: 5% quarterly growth rate in the active immigrant population for sensitivity figure.

### Labor market outcomes for migrants and institutional influences
- Migrants experience significantly higher unemployment than natives.
- Non-Nordic immigrants tend to be younger and less educated than natives; foreign qualifications among highly educated migrants are less likely to be accepted by Nordic employers.
- Sweden and Finland: unemployment rates among the low skilled were over 15 percent in 2014.
- Sweden: foreign-native unemployment gap of 10 percentage points in 2013.
- All Nordic countries have higher ratios of low-skill unemployment to medium-skill unemployment than the OECD average.
- Institutional factors contributing to migrants’ labor market outcomes:
  - Strong unions and collective bargaining yield wage stability and compressed wage structures (high wage floors).
  - High wage floors can raise costs in low-skill–intensive sectors, reducing output and employment in those sectors.
  - Generous social supports raise reservation wages:
    - Finland: highest net replacement rate for long term unemployment among the four Nordic countries, with a long duration—currently at 500 days.
    - Norway: spends close to 6 percent of GDP on disability and sickness benefits (highest among OECD).
  - Sweden: asymmetry in employment protection (high protection for regular workers, low for temporary workers) is associated with labor market duality and higher incidence of non-permanent contracts among lower skilled workers.

### Quantitative assessment — cross-country panel evidence
- Estimation framework: baseline OLS panel and dynamic GMM (Arellano and Bond) over 22 advanced OECD countries, 1995–2012, relating unemployment to lagged share of migrants in the labor force and controls.
- OLS baseline results:
  - A one percentage point increase in the migrant share of the labor force is estimated to increase the overall unemployment rate by 0.25 percentage points (Column 1).
  - Impact on subgroups:
    - Foreign born unemployment rises (Column 2).
    - Native unemployment also rises but by a smaller amount (Column 3).
    - Youth unemployment: a one percentage point increase in migrant share raises youth unemployment by 0.53 percentage points.
    - Low-skilled workers experience larger increases in unemployment than medium- or high-skilled workers (differences statistically significant).
- Dynamic GMM results:
  - A one percentage point increase in the migrant share is estimated to increase overall unemployment by 0.15 percentage points (smaller than OLS estimate of 0.25).
  - Persistence: auto-regressive coefficient is 0.63, implying the initial response compounds and the unemployment impact lasts for a few years.
- Interpretation: magnitudes differ by specification; effects vary substantially across countries and depend on relative skill distributions.

### Spatial correlations approach — Danish municipal evidence
- Method: spatial correlations using data from 95 Danish municipalities over 2000–12, with IV estimation to address endogenous settlement patterns.
- Finding: municipalities with an increase in migration inflows tend to experience higher subsequent unemployment.

*Source: _wp15254 - 6.6 percent. Although this share is still low compared to some other advanced economies*

### Box 2. The Labor Market Impact of Migration in Denmark: A Spatial Correlations Approach

### Box 2. The Labor Market Impact of Migration in Denmark: A Spatial Correlations Approach

### Spatial distribution of immigrants and empirical strategy
- Immigrants are very unevenly distributed across Denmark:
  - The median municipality currently has about 3,000 immigrants.
  - Copenhagen has over 100,000 immigrants and about one-fifth of the Danish population (or about one fifth of the entire immigrant population in Denmark).
- Large variations in migration inflows across municipalities facilitate empirical investigation of labor market effects.
- Instrumental-variable approach to address endogeneity:
  - Use the shift-share instrument originally introduced by Card (2001), which distributes nationwide migration inflows across municipalities according to the initial distribution of immigrants (e.g., in 1980).
  - The identifying assumption: the initial shares are unrelated to future changes that might affect migrants’ location decisions if the shares are calculated far enough back in time.
  - Constructed proxy time series of migration inflows for each municipality; the correlation between this proxy series and the actual inflows is about 0.6.
  - Instrument formulation (textual form in source): the instrument effectively multiplies nationwide migration inflows by municipality i’s initial share of the national immigrant population.

### Data, estimation, and IV diagnostics
- Estimation approach and sample:
  - Model (2) in the main text estimated with panel 2SLS.
  - Annual data for 95 Danish municipalities over 2000–12.
  - Growth of real household disposable income used to control for cyclical conditions at the local level (due to data availability).
- IV performance:
  - First-stage F-statistic for an excluded instrument: 9.8 (p-value 0.0023).
  - IV correction increases the estimated coefficient on migration relative to OLS, consistent with endogeneity biasing OLS downward.

### Short-run labor market impacts (municipal level)
- IV estimates indicate:
  - A one standard deviation increase in migration inflows (1.2 percentage points, measured as a share of the municipal population) raises the municipal unemployment rate by about 1 percentage point (for the municipal population, both migrants and non-migrants) in the short run.

### Role of policy and institutions — cross-country panel evidence
- Data and model:
  - Panel of 18 advanced OECD countries for 1995–2012.
  - Panel fixed effects model estimated for annual unemployment rate among the foreign-born population (also report native-born unemployment and foreign-native unemployment gap).
  - Model includes share of migrants in the labor force and vector of controls (e.g., output gap); country and year fixed effects included.
- Key findings from the OECD-panel analysis:
  - Wage structure, active labor market policy (ALMP) spending, and employment protection legislation (EPL) design matter for foreign-born unemployment.
  - A less compressed wage distribution (higher wage dispersion) and higher spending per unemployed on activation measures are associated with lower foreign-born unemployment rates.
    - Example magnitude: a one standard deviation increase in the 90th/10th percentile wage ratio is estimated to reduce the foreign-born unemployment rate by 5.5 percentage points.
  - Greater asymmetry in strictness of employment protection between regular and temporary contracts (labor market duality) is associated with higher foreign-born unemployment.
  - Other policies—unemployment benefits, disability pensions, labor tax wedge—do not show a statistically significant impact on immigrant unemployment in this analysis, although they influence native outcomes (e.g., higher unemployment benefit replacement rate associated with higher native-born unemployment).
  - Wage dispersion and ALMP spending also reduce native-born unemployment, but estimated effects on foreign-born unemployment are much higher; as a result, the foreign-native unemployment gap is narrowed when wage dispersion is higher or ALMP spending is larger.

### Policy simulations and illustrative magnitudes
- Wage dispersion:
  - Increasing Nordic wage dispersion (90th/10th percentile wage ratio) to the average OECD level is estimated to reduce the equilibrium foreign-born unemployment rate by:
    - Over 10 percentage points for the average Nordic country.
    - 12 percentage points in Sweden.
  - Note: the source emphasizes this is a crude illustration and does not imply the OECD average is an optimal benchmark.
- Active labor market policy (ALMP) spending:
  - The model suggests the average foreign-born unemployment rate across the Nordics would have been about 2.2 percentage points higher if ALMP spending were reduced to the average OECD level.
- Employment protection asymmetry:
  - If Sweden were to move to the OECD value of EPL asymmetry, its equilibrium foreign-born unemployment rate would be reduced by 3.4 percentage points.

### Interpretation, caveats, and policy implications
- Interpretation:
  - Migration can have a short-term adverse impact on unemployment in the host country, felt most strongly among the young and lower-skilled.
  - Labor market policies and institutions can mitigate or amplify these effects.
- Caveats:
  - Estimates are sensitive to uncertainties associated with structural policy effects on unemployment.
  - Broad results may not predict effects of specific policies or reforms without accounting for complementarity and sequencing.
  - Simulated policy changes may entail fiscal costs (e.g., higher welfare payments to cushion wage-distribution changes), which could require higher tax rates and affect employment outcomes.
- Policy recommendations and directions for the Nordic model:
  - Wage flexibility:
    - Fine-tune collective bargaining to allow more differentiation across sectors and permit wage agreements that better reflect individual productivity, firm-specific factors, and local demand.
    - Maintain ALMP to close wage-productivity gaps (e.g., skill building, direct wage subsidies), recognizing limits to ALMP capacity and fiscal costs.
    - Particular relevance for Sweden given its acute unemployment among vulnerable groups and greater scope for increased wage flexibility.
  - Active labor market policies:
    - Prioritize and better target ALMP to maximize impact—emphasize training that meets employers’ needs (e.g., workplace training) and job matching services.
    - Tailor active programs to needs of different groups (vocationally disabled, economic immigrants, older/younger workers).
  - Employment protection:
    - Reduce asymmetry between permanent and temporary contracts to alleviate labor market duality and its adverse consequences for immigrants (e.g., scale down job security rules for regular contracts).
  - Social support design:
    - Strike balance between protection and work incentives (e.g., intensified activation as a condition for benefit eligibility).
- Overall assessment:
  - Steps already underway in the Nordics (restricting eligibility/generosity of some benefits, encouraging participation, providing greater ALMP resources or targeting) help, but deeper reforms across the wage-setting framework, ALMP design, EPL symmetry, and social support design are likely needed to integrate migrants more fully while preserving the strengths of the Nordic model.

*Source: Box 2. The Labor Market Impact of Migration in Denmark: A Spatial Correlations Approach (excerpt).*

### References

### _wp15254 - References

### Key empirical findings from tables and regressions
- Summary statistics (Intra-Nordic Migration, sample spans 1995-2012):
  - Net migration (% host population): Obs 96, Mean 0.01, Std. Dev. 0.02, Min -0.01, Max 0.07
  - Output gap differential (%) : Obs 96, Mean 0.33, Std. Dev. 1.88, Min -3.53, Max 4.65
  - Unemployment gap differential (%) : Obs 96, Mean -1.41, Std. Dev. 2.12, Min -6.73, Max 2.57
  - Log wage differential: Obs 96, Mean 0.10, Std. Dev. 0.12, Min -0.19, Max 0.27
  - Unemployment benefit rate differential (%): Obs 96, Mean 0.23, Std. Dev. 0.34, Min -0.52, Max 0.94
  - Immigrant stock (% host population): Obs 96, Mean 0.41, Std. Dev. 0.33, Min 0.06, Max 1.17
  - Share of youth (% source population, log): Obs 96, Mean 2.93, Std. Dev. 0.03, Min 2.85, Max 3.02

- Drivers of migration (Intra-Nordic GLS/OLS results, paired with country pair and year fixed effects; Estimation samples span 1995-2012):
  - Number of country pairs: 66
  - Selected coefficient estimates (columns summarized in source; robust standard errors in brackets; statistical significance at 1% ***, 5% **, and 10% *):
    - Output gap differential (host-source, lag): coefficient examples include -0.0026 [0.001]*** and -0.0032 [0.001]***
    - Unemployment gap differential (host-source, lag): positive and sizeable coefficients 0.1434 [0.048]***, 0.1491 [0.047]***, 0.0981 [0.046]**
    - Stock of immigrants (% host population, lag): coefficients reported e.g. 0.1473 [0.060]**, 0.1595 [0.060]***, 0.1318 [0.074]*

- Summary statistics (Non‑Nordic EU Migration, sample spans 1995-2012):
  - Net migration (% host population): Obs 1,164, Mean 0.003, Std. Dev. 0.02, Min -0.03, Max 0.28
  - Output gap differential (%): Obs 1,164, Mean 0.03, Std. Dev. 2.54, Min -9.83, Max 7.75
  - Unemployment gap differential (%): Obs 1,164, Mean 0.62, Std. Dev. 2.86, Min -9.67, Max 8.81
  - Log wage differential: Obs 1,164, Mean 0.10, Std. Dev. 0.35, Min -0.46, Max 1.03
  - Unemployment benefit rate differential (%): Obs 1,164, Mean 0.64, Std. Dev. 0.61, Min -0.76, Max 2.32
  - Immigrant stock (% host population): Obs 1,164, Mean 0.06, Std. Dev. 0.11, Min 0.00, Max 1.34
  - Share of youth (% source population, log): Obs 1,164, Mean 3.00, Std. Dev. 0.11, Min 2.73, Max 3.23
  - EU access (dummy): Obs 1,164, Mean 0.11, Std. Dev. 0.31, Min 0.00, Max 1.00

- Drivers of Non‑Nordic EU migration (GLS/OLS, 22 EU source countries and 4 Nordic host countries over 1995-2012):
  - Number of country pairs: 88
  - Selected coefficient examples (robust standard errors in brackets; statistical significance at 1% ***, 5% **, and 10% *):
    - Output gap differential: coefficients reported as 0.0003 [0.000]***, 0.0004 [0.000]***, etc.
    - Log real wage differential: coefficients reported e.g. 0.0288 [0.006]***, 0.0204 [0.006]***
    - Stock of immigrants (% host population, lag): coefficients e.g. 0.1252 [0.006]***, 0.1286 [0.006]***
    - EU access (dummy): 0.0136 [0.002]***, 0.0114 [0.002]***, 0.0154 [0.002]***

- Impact of migration on unemployment — OLS static results (sample: 22 OECD countries, 1995-2012; dependent variable unemployment rate):
  - Share of migrants in labor force (lag) — coefficient examples by group:
    - Total: 0.252 [0.099]**
    - Foreign-born: 0.371 [0.153]**
    - Native-born: 0.232 [0.113]*
    - Low skilled: 0.330 [0.109]***
    - Medium skilled: 0.270 [0.144]*
    - High skilled: 0.058 [0.121]
    - Youth: 0.525 [0.204]**
  - Output gap — examples: -0.563 [0.064]***, -0.763 [0.105]***, -0.504 [0.071]***

- Impact of migration on unemployment — GMM dynamic results (migration instrumented with lags 2 to 4; 22 OECD countries, 1995-2012):
  - Share of migrants in labor force (lag) — coefficient examples:
    - Total: 0.148 [0.031]***
    - Foreign-born: 0.199 [0.091]**
    - Native-born: 0.102 [0.043]**
    - Low skilled: 0.168 [0.092]*
    - Medium skilled: 0.137 [0.047]***
    - High skilled: 0.097 [0.039]**
    - Youth: 0.212 [0.085]**
  - Output gap: -0.250 [0.034]***, -0.309 [0.080]***, -0.227 [0.038]***, -0.286 [0.055]***
  - Lagged dependent variable: 0.626 [0.051]***, 0.712 [0.100]***, 0.643 [0.063]***

- Policy and institutions effects on unemployment (sample consists of 18 OECD countries over 1995-2012; country and year fixed effects included):
  - Number of countries: 18; Observations examples: 147, 151
  - Example coefficients and statistics:
    - Tax wedge (lag): coefficients e.g. -11.222 [2.710]***, -9.399 [2.576]***
    - Share of migrants in labor force (lag): coefficient examples 1.397 [0.362]***, 1.044 [0.363]**, 1.151 [0.430]**
    - Output gap: coefficients e.g. -0.543 [0.181]***, -0.560 [0.200]**, -0.654 [0.189]***

### The Nordic labor market model — features and institutional characteristics
- Core features (as described in Annex I):
  - Three distinctive features: (i) flexible hiring and firing rules, (ii) generous social safety nets, and (iii) active labor market policies (ALMP).
  - Strong unions and a centralized collective wage bargaining system that yields a relatively compressed wage structure.
  - ALMP support high wage floors and low unemployment by enhancing skills and partly subsidizing low-productivity workers.
  - Application of these elements varies across Nordic countries.

- Employment protection and labor turnover:
  - OECD indicators: temporary contract protection lower in Nordic-4 (except Norway) than OECD average; Sweden has the lowest protection for temporary contracts and among the highest protection for regular contracts, creating the largest gap between regular and temporary contract indicators in the OECD.
  - Labor turnover is relatively high in the Nordic countries, especially among lower-skilled groups, allowing firms to adjust to shocks but contributing to higher unemployment among vulnerable groups (youth and immigrants).

- Unemployment benefits:
  - Short-term benefit generosity: around the OECD average or only slightly more generous.
  - Long-term (more than 60 months) net replacement rates: substantially higher in Nordic-4 than many other OECD countries.
  - Finland has the highest net replacement rate for long-term unemployment among the four (with long duration, currently at 500 days), followed by Sweden.
  - Trade-off noted: unemployment insurance cushions job loss and supports search, but more generous and longer-lasting benefits can raise reservation wages and lengthen unemployment spells.

- Health-related benefits and disability:
  - Health-related expenditures are high by OECD standards: over 3 percent of GDP in most Nordic countries and close to 6 percent in Norway.
  - In Norway about 10 percent of the 20–64 aged population are recipients of disability benefits, with low outflows from disability claims.
  - Sickness absence prevalent in all Nordic countries except Denmark; significant lost working hours despite generally good population health indicators.

- Active labor market policies (ALMP):
  - Expenditure on active measures: Denmark, Finland, and Sweden rank at the highest three among OECD countries; Norway is lower than OECD average.
  - Post‑crisis intensification: labor market measures in all Nordic countries intensified sharply in the aftermath of the global crisis.
  - Variation in strategy: Denmark more goal‑oriented, Norway more universal, Sweden and Finland intermediate.

- Union density and collective bargaining:
  - Union density is distinctively high in Nordic-4 relative to other OECD countries.
  - Collective agreements perform regulatory functions typically handled by legal regulation elsewhere.
  - Norway: somewhat lower union density but mandatory extensions of collective agreements to sectors with heavy concentrations of low-wage and immigrant workers (e.g., construction, cleaning).

### Labor market performance outcomes
- Participation, employment, and unemployment:
  - Labor force participation (including females) and employment rates in Nordic countries are well above the OECD average, although Finland lags somewhat.
  - Unemployment levels are relatively low given high participation; Norway has the second lowest unemployment rate among OECD countries.
  - Unemployment rates in Finland, Denmark, and Sweden have been higher since the global financial crisis.

- Wage equality and gender gap:
  - Wage equality (inverse of the 90th/10th percentile wage ratio) is substantially higher than the OECD average in Nordic countries.
  - Male-female wage gaps are relatively low in the Nordic region.

### Notes on data, samples, and methodology (as documented)
- Data sources: OECD's International Migration Database, OECD, Eurostat, and authors' calculations.
- Time coverage: Estimation samples span 1995-2012 for panel regressions reported.
- Country coverage:
  - Migration and unemployment regressions: sample consists of 22 OECD countries over 1995-2012 (for many specifications).
  - Policy and institutions regressions: sample consists of 18 OECD countries over 1995-2012.
  - Non‑Nordic EU migration sample includes 22 EU source countries and 4 Nordic host countries over 1995-2012.
- Econometric approach:
  - Panel regressions with country pair and year fixed effects.
  - GLS specifications correct for panel-specific autocorrelation.
  - GMM dynamic estimator treats migration as endogenous (instrumented with lags 2 to 4); Hansen and AR(2) test p-values reported for validity checks.
  - Robust standard errors reported in brackets; statistical significance at 1% ***, 5% **, and 10% *.

*Italicized references and source listings are included in the original PDF.*

### Annex II. Collective Bargaining in the Nordic countries

### Annex II. Collective Bargaining in the Nordic countries

### Role and coverage of collective bargaining
- The Nordic labor market model is built upon the key role played by collective bargaining in setting wages and employment conditions.
- Union density averages about 64 percent across the Nordics in 2012.
- Coverage of the collective agreements (i.e. the share of individuals covered by union agreements independent of membership) is 70–80 percent of the private labor force, except for Norway with somewhat lower coverage at around 50 percent (Andersen et al., 2014).
- Negotiations generally take place at multiple levels: overall framework and parameters usually determined at the national level, and collective agreements take place at the sector level.
- In wage negotiations, manufacturing—being more exposed to international competition and more productive with higher wages—typically sets the tone for wage setting for the rest of the economy.

### Country nuances in bargaining structure and timing
- Denmark:
  - Collective bargaining takes place both at the sector level and the more decentralized level, normally every second year in odd years.
  - In the private sector, at the national level, the Danish Employers’ Confederation and the Danish Confederation of Trade Unions negotiate general claims such as general pay increases, reduction of working hours etc.
  - More specific claims are subsequently negotiated at the sector level.
  - In the public sector, almost every employee is covered by collective agreements; most of the public sector is regulated by central collective bargaining.
- Finland:
  - Finland’s collective bargaining system is highly centralized.
  - A national inter-sectoral agreement is negotiated between the government, the central trade union confederations and the employers’ organizations, covering a wide range of economic and social issues and setting a framework for sector-level bargaining.
  - Main pay and working conditions for most workers are negotiated at the sector level.
  - There is no statutory minimum wage in Finland; terms and conditions are primarily determined by collective agreement due to high unionization and coverage.
  - Recent negotiations tend to have more locally negotiated items as attempts to decentralize wage negotiations have increased flexibility.
- Norway:
  - Collective bargaining has a hierarchical structure: union confederations and national employers’ associations set the framework through the basic agreements.
  - The basic agreements are negotiated every four years.
  - Industry-level agreements follow, with the manufacturing sector (competitive sector) setting the norm for wage growth in the rest of the labor market (sheltered sector).
  - Industry-level complete agreements are re-negotiated every two years while pay rates are reviewed in the years in between.
  - Company-level negotiations take place annually.
- Sweden:
  - Collective bargaining takes place at the sector level and is highly coordinated across industries with the national industry agreement setting the example.
  - National agreements regularly set the floor on wage increases at the firm/local level.
  - Pay agreements typically take place every three years.
  - The Swedish system shares similarities with the German bargaining framework but provides less scope at the firm-level to adjust wages to local conditions (Schindler, 2014).

*Source: _wp15254 - Annex II. Collective Bargaining in the Nordic countries*

### Annex III. Recent Labor Market Reforms in the Nordic Countries

### Denmark — reforms summarized
- Early retirement scheme reformed in 2011, increasing the statutory retirement age from 65 to 67 over the period 2019–22, and indexing the retirement age to life expectancy from 2015.
- Social assistance reformed in 2013 to prevent young adults being trapped in social assistance and inactivity:
  - Increased job search obligations and sanctions for adults over 30 years old.
  - Removed social assistance for low-educated youth under 30 but encouraged them to undertake education with a benefit equivalent to the education grant system.
- Starting from 2013, the maximum unemployment insurance benefit period was cut from four to two years.
- Eligibility criteria for disability pensions tightened and the period for sickness benefits shortened.
- A reform of ALMP is expected in early 2015, with emphasis on:
  - New, individual and job-focused effort for the unemployed.
  - Targeted training and education with enhanced focus on the needs of companies.
  - Improved cooperation between job centers and companies (IMF, 2014a).

### Finland — reforms summarized
- To address rapid population aging and the relatively low average effective retirement age (around 61 in 2013), the government is discussing plans to gradually increase the effective retirement age by 1.5 years by 2025, with implementation starting in 2017.
- To encourage labor participation:
  - Active job seekers are allowed to earn up to €300 per month without a reduction in unemployment benefits, while their employment plans will be monitored more closely.
  - The “youth guarantee”—in place in 2013—offers everyone under the age of 25, as well as recent graduates under the age of 30, a place in employment, study, on-the-job training or in a rehabilitation within three months after becoming unemployed.
  - Policies developed to encourage job seekers to consider offers across regions, improved employment services for immigrants, the disabled, and long-term unemployed, and amendments to the child home care subsidy and job alteration leave policies (IMF, 2014b; OECD, 2012).

### Norway — reforms summarized
- The Inclusive Workplace Agreement (IA) was signed in 2001 between the government and the social partners to reduce sickness absence and increase the employment of disabled people; it has been renewed many times but effectiveness has been limited so far.
- Starting from January 2015, the disability pension was replaced with disability benefits:
  - All disability pensions are now recalculated as disability benefits which are taxed as income and not as a pension.
  - The new system ensures incentives to work while receiving disability benefits.
- Pension reforms:
  - The 2011 pension reforms introduced an adjustment of pensions for changes in life expectancy, flexible retirement starting at age 62 based on actuarial principles, and new rules for indexation of pensions.
  - Preliminary data suggest some increases in labor participation in older workers, but the full impact of reforms is yet to be known.

### Sweden — reforms summarized
- The incoming government in 2006 implemented a wave of labor market reforms aimed at addressing unemployment and poverty traps, targeted at non-prime age workers (the very young and the very old).
- Key measures included:
  - Reducing the tax burden for low-wage jobs through income tax deductions.
  - Greater focus of ALMPs on training and job matching.
  - Reductions in unemployment and sickness benefits.
  - Wage subsidies to employers hiring vulnerable groups (New Start Jobs), immigrants (Step-In Jobs), or the previously sick (Well Again Jobs).
- In recent years, work incentives increased through the earned income tax credit, although the 2016 budget bill proposes a gradual tapering of the amount of the credit as income rises.

*Source: _wp15254 - Annex III. Recent Labor Market Reforms in the Nordic Countries*

### Annex IV. Integrating Immigrants into the Nordic Labor Market

### Common program features
- The Nordic countries have similar programs aiming at integrating immigrants into the labor market, emphasizing language training, vocational training, recognition of qualifications, and workplace introduction/traineeship.
- Many programs include obligatory participation conditions tied to benefits and use municipal implementation and individualized integration plans.

### Denmark — integration measures
- Emphasis on employment and early labor market access for immigrants; initially focused on refugees but now applies to all qualified immigrants.
- Program components: intensive language training, vocational education and training, workplace introduction/traineeship.
- Participation is obligatory and generally framed as a formal signed contract between the receiving municipality and the immigrant.
- Social benefits are lower initially to increase work incentives.
- A “spatial dispersal policy” in place since 1986 aimed at distributing immigrants across municipalities based on housing, employment, and educational facilities.
- The 1994 “Action Plan” improved recognition of foreign qualifications.
- The first Integration Act of 1999 transferred integration responsibilities to the municipalities and expanded the integration program to 3-year duration, covering all newly arriving non-EEA immigrants above 18.
- The new Integration Act of 2004 enhanced municipalities’ incentives to integrate new arrivals rapidly into the labor market.

### Finland — integration measures
- Integration Act of 1999 aimed to promote integration, equality and freedom of choice by providing measures to help immigrants acquire information and skills needed in Finnish society.
- Municipalities are required to prepare municipal-level integration programs.
- Immigrants are obliged to draw up individualized integration plans consisting of language courses, preparatory and vocational training, career counseling, etc., tailored to individual characteristics.
- Refusal to participate or failure to follow the plan is sanctioned by a reduction in social benefits; this obligation applies to those entering after May 1, 1997.
- A new law on integration of immigrants came into effect in 2011, assigning duties and responsibilities to different levels of administration.

### Norway — integration measures
- Focus on making best use of immigrants’ skills through targeted language/vocational training and improvements in recognition procedures for foreign qualifications.
- A dispersal policy was used to help spatial distribution of refugees across municipalities.
- An introduction program fully implemented in 2004:
  - Participation is obligatory for all 18–55 year old immigrants arriving after 2004 who lack basic qualifications.
  - The program has three main objectives: provide basic language skills, give insights into Norwegian society through social studies, and prepare for the labor market.
  - The program is full time and can last a maximum of 2 years (but may be extended to a maximum of 3 years).
  - Participation is required for immigrants to get introduction benefits.
- An Action Plan of 2006 provided additional funding for indirectly targeted ALMP instruments and closer follow-up of participants.

### Sweden — integration measures
- An introduction program consisting of language training, introduction to life in Sweden, and employment preparation aims to facilitate transition to the labor market.
- Eligibility: any recognized asylum seekers—including family members who arrived soon afterwards—aged 20–64 years (or 18–19 years without parents living in Sweden).
- Program length is 24 months (with possible extensions for paternal/maternal leave).
- Participation is not compulsory, but once agreed between the refugee and the state, it must be followed for the participant to continue receiving introduction benefits.
- After the introduction period, usual ALMP measures are available to refugees who qualify (e.g., recruitment incentives, self-employment start-up grants, job matching services, and work experience at a work place).

*Source: _wp15254 - Annex IV. Integrating Immigrants into the Nordic Labor Market*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/_wp15254.pdf_