The Politics of Naturalization in the Scandinavian Welfare States

Across Europe countries increasingly turn towards employing naturalization requirements as incentives for immigrant integration. Yet, what has been described as convergence from a European perspective looks like divergence from a Nordic perspective. Despite Denmark, Sweden and Norway all answer to the same structural logics of a comprehensive, universal welfare state, this has, seemingly, not shaped their responses to increasing immigration in relation to naturalization law. Sweden is the most liberal citizenship regime of the four with no requirements at all while Denmark has developed the most restrictive regime with a host of tough requirements. Danish and Swedish naturalization rules are some of the most different also in European comparison. Finland and Norway fall in between these two poles. Why have comparatively similar countries responded so differently to immigration in their naturalization rules? This paper investigates how structural and electoral logics are mediated by diverse, meaningful rationales of what can legitimately count as good normative arguments and valid causal claims in public debates about civic incorporation of newcomers. While both  arguments for and against naturalization requirements are motivated by superficially similar liberal-democratic or civic values, giving us reason to think such reason-giving as inconsequential, closer examination reveals large variation. These values are understood and prioritized differently and they in themselves provide no answers to what is the kind of empirical processes underlying successful immigrant integration and the reproduction of social cohesion. The Nordic comparison shows how national identities based on similar civic values can direct naturalization rules in very different directions.