ABSTRACT
In this chapter, we analyse and compare the integration strategies of England, Scotland, Finland, Malta, and Berlin in order to understand how governments imagine refugee integration and understand what it should look like. Our analytical starting point is that existing work on refugee integration rarely offers a comparison of public policy on integration, while existing means of comparing integration initiatives fail to attend to the specific context and needs of those seeking refuge. Moreover, integration policy initiatives often take place below the national level; in the United Kingdom (UK), for instance, integration is devolved to the devolved parliaments and assemblies, while in Germany, it is similarly devolved to the Bundesländer. In our comparison of integration strategies, we focus specifically on definitions of (two-way) integration, who is included under the policies’ remit, the main challenges identified that inhibit integration, and who is considered responsible for achieving integration outcomes. Our analysis shows considerable variation in terms of both the understanding and organisation of refugee integration, which also belies the ideologies at play. We show how integration in England, which falls under the remit of the UK government, is particularly restrictive compared to the more progressive policies of Scotland, Finland, and Berlin.
