SD should spend more on integration than on return grants

Integration is not an abstract favour handed to newcomers. It is what happens when a person can learn Swedish, have qualifications recognised, enter a workplace, understand public institutions and build a secure home. Personal effort matters at every step. But effort needs a fair route to travel.

Jimmie Åkesson drew a much harder line on Tuesday. As DailySweden reported today, the Sweden Democrats leader told a P1 interview that he would like to spend “exactly zero kronor” on integration. He argued that adapting to Swedish society is the individual’s responsibility, not a question of public funding.

That position deserves a constructive answer. Sweden should expect people who settle here to learn the language, respect the law and participate in society. Public money cannot manufacture belonging, and programmes that fail should be changed or closed. But zero kronor is not a reform plan. It is the state walking away from the conditions that make responsibility possible.

The contrast with return migration is revealing. Since January, the government backed by SD has offered a voluntary return grant of SEK 350,000 per adult, SEK 25,000 per child and up to SEK 600,000 per household under the grant rules. A voluntary grant can be a legitimate option for someone who genuinely wants to leave. But if public money can influence a person’s ability to start again elsewhere, why pretend that money has no role in helping a person build a life here?

Åkesson’s preferred zero is not Sweden’s current budget. The enacted 2026 budget provides about SEK 101.8 million for direct integration measures and SEK 4.39 billion in municipal reimbursements connected to refugee reception. More importantly, the government’s own integration goal joins duties with opportunity: people should strive to become part of Sweden, while society should set demands and provide the means to meet them.

The government also received a warning before dramatically increasing the return grant. Its official inquiry concluded that large increases should be avoided. It said generous payments aimed at producing a fiscal gain could tell targeted residents that they are not welcome, weaken their belief that integration is possible and create social costs greater than the uncertain savings.

There is evidence for a better use of public money. An OECD review recommends individually adapted Swedish teaching combined with formal qualifications and workplace learning. A randomised Swedish trial brought intensive language study, supervised work practice, job-search support and employer cooperation together. About 30 percent of participants were employed in an average month during the first year after the programme, compared with roughly 15 percent in the control group.

That does not justify every project carrying the integration label. It justifies demanding results. Sweden should fund high-quality language teaching, faster recognition of skills, vocational routes tied to real vacancies and closer employer matching, then publish what works and stop paying for what does not. Accountability belongs on both sides.

The maths should be reversed. Sweden should invest considerably more in helping residents participate than in encouraging them to depart. Return support can remain a limited, voluntary option, but it must not become the clearest offer made to people whose future is still here. A serious integration policy asks something of the individual and something of the country. If SD wants integration to succeed, zero cannot be its contribution.

DailySweden

DailySweden's desk of editors, reporters, researchers and investigative journalists. We bring readers factual, truthful and objective reporting on the issues that matter to them.

Contact the editorial desk ›