<p>An effective Integration policy is important in Sweden while our government has decided and committed to be a country where everybody will be given the same opportunities. There is a greater awareness in today’s society of integration policy goals such as equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities for all. In a number of areas, however, the disparities between immigrants and Swedish-born citizens are still too large.</p><p>The Swedish Riksdag decided on integration policy in 1997. The main task for this thesis will be to examine the motive behind the Government's decision to revoke immigrations policy and introduce integration policy. This task will be completed with two questions at issue;</p><p>• Which were the obvious pronounced and underlying, extern- and intern sectorial motives and which immigrant policies could be identified during the three periods; 1, 2 and 3?</p><p>• In what way have the extern- and intern sectorial motives, that where expressed in 1997, affected the douting in 2006 years integrationspolicy?</p><p>The questions will be examined by using Lindbloms muddling through theory and Dahlströms “eigth faces of immigration politics” and for identifying motives a model inspired by Hadenius will be used.</p><p>The empirical material has brought forward that the decision to introduce integrationpolicy was based on the central motive that earlier immigration policy produced assimilationpolitics. Which futher on caused the “perverse effect” – segregationpolitics.</p><p>The adjustments have been clarifying of words sooner than improvement of concrete measures. The Swedish government has applied seven different immigrationpolitics during the periods 1, 2 and 3. Becides Dahlströms “eight faces of immigration politics” two more have been identified; “demanding politics and condition politics”. Seven of the ten different types have been noticed; assimilation-, segregation-, diversity-, demanding, condition-, residual-, universial politics.</p><p>The motives that where observed during period 2 didn´t improve the conditions for the immigrant which were discriminated in society especially on the labourmarket. The motives from period 2 have therefore affected the motives for period 3. The recently appointed government will during it´s runningperiod try to leave the muddling through theory by the motives in creating conditions for a “self earned living” and participation. By doing this the esscense of diversity and integration policy will hopefully be reached.</p>

An effective Integration policy is important in Sweden while our government has decided and committed to be a country where everybody will be given the same opportunities. There is a greater awareness in today’s society of integration policy goals such as equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities for all. In a number of areas, however, the disparities between immigrants and Swedish-born citizens are still too large. The Swedish Riksdag decided on integration policy in 1997. The main task for this thesis will be to examine the motive behind the Government's decision to revoke immigrations policy and introduce integration policy. This task will be completed with two questions at issue; • Which were the obvious pronounced and underlying, extern- and intern sectorial motives and which immigrant policies could be identified during the three periods; 1, 2 and 3? • In what way have the extern- and intern sectorial motives, that where expressed in 1997, affected the douting in 2006 years integrationspolicy? The questions will be examined by using Lindbloms muddling through theory and Dahlströms “eigth faces of immigration politics” and for identifying motives a model inspired by Hadenius will be used. The empirical material has brought forward that the decision to introduce integrationpolicy was based on the central motive that earlier immigration policy produced assimilationpolitics. Which futher on caused the “perverse effect” – segregationpolitics. The adjustments have been clarifying of words sooner than improvement of concrete measures. The Swedish government has applied seven different immigrationpolitics during the periods 1, 2 and 3. Becides Dahlströms “eight faces of immigration politics” two more have been identified; “demanding politics and condition politics”. Seven of the ten different types have been noticed; assimilation-, segregation-, diversity-, demanding, condition-, residual-, universial politics. The motives that where observed during period 2 didn´t improve the conditions for the immigrant which were discriminated in society especially on the labourmarket. The motives from period 2 have therefore affected the motives for period 3. The recently appointed government will during it´s runningperiod try to leave the muddling through theory by the motives in creating conditions for a “self earned living” and participation. By doing this the esscense of diversity and integration policy will hopefully be reached.