Sweden Announces Development Aid Linked To Irregular Migration Control – Forbes

The Government of Sweden Announces Aid Package to Reduce Irregular Migration

The government of Sweden has announced a multi-million dollar aid package for developing countries. The package is explicitly linked to the goal of reducing irregular migration to Europe. It is designed to both improve conditions in countries of origin, thereby reducing incentives for people to leave, and improve those countries’ capacity to receive rejected asylum seekers from Sweden. The explicit linking by a government of irregular migration and development is an interesting development, and opens up further discussion on the relationship between the two.

Sweden’s Strategy to Reduce Irregular Migration

“Today, the government presented a new strategy of 3 billion SEK (around $280 million) in aid funds over four years, with the aim of reducing irregular migration to Sweden,” announced Benjamin Dousa, Sweden’s minister for foreign trade and international development, on Twitter. “It is an important step in connecting aid with migration.”

Conditions Attached to Development Aid

For a government to link development aid so directly to controlling irregular migration is somewhat rare. While details are yet to be fully outlined, Dousa made clear that these development aid funds will be to at least some extent subject to conditions – presumably along the lines of Sweden’s expectations of cooperation on reducing migration. Typically, when governments talk about addressing the “root causes” of migration and aiding development in countries of origin, the language used is more subtle.

European Union’s Efforts to Reduce Irregular Arrivals

This announcement comes as European Union member states are pursuing more extensive strategies to try to reduce irregular arrivals to the continent. The most popular strategy at the moment is what’s known as ‘border externalization‘ wherein third-countries, particularly in North and West Africa, are funded to either prevent people leaving their territory or intercept them on the way to Europe. There is also considerable attention on the related strategy of paying third-countries to receive asylum seekers to process their claims there, instead of in Europe, as seen with the Italy-Albania scheme and now-scrapped U.K.-Rwanda scheme.

The Salience of Immigration in Swedish Politics

As in many of these other European countries, immigration is a very salient topic in Swedish politics in recent years, with far-right anti-immigration parties leveraging concerns over the issue to electoral gain. In 2022’s general election, the far-right Sweden Democrats (SD) party secured enough votes to gain influence over the resulting minority government led by the center-right Moderate Party. SD have long campaigned on reducing irregular immigration and the government since 2022 has laid out several plans along those lines, including offering to pay immigrants up to $34,000 to leave the country voluntarily.

The Development-Migration Nexus

Sweden’s decision to link development aid directly to reducing irregular migration is likely to spark a lot of interest among migration experts and development economists. The relationship between economic development and emigration is hotly debated. On the one hand, it seems self-evident that the more stable a country is, and the more its citizens are able to pursue lives of safety, dignity and prosperity, the less incentivized they will be to leave. On the other hand, it has been observed that in some of the poorest countries – where people are so destitute they can’t afford even to flee – small bumps in development can actually mean an increase in people leaving.

Governmental Control and Coercion

Previous discussions of the so-called development-migration nexus tend to focus on these kinds of economic questions in countries of origin, and are somewhat neutral on the questions of governmental control and coercion. But it should be noted that, in the Swedish government’s announcement, it appears clear that the arrangement relies on securing developing countries’ cooperation in both receiving deportees and enhanced ‘border management’ in those countries. This hints towards an approach that has more in common with other EU member states’ ‘border externalization’ strategies than is obvious at first glance.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The issues highlighted in the article are connected to SDG 10 as it focuses on reducing inequalities, including migration-related inequalities. It is also connected to SDG 16 as it involves the government’s approach to controlling irregular migration and its cooperation with other countries. Additionally, SDG 17 is relevant as it emphasizes the importance of partnerships and cooperation in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular, and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.
• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
• Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources.

Based on the article’s content, the specific targets that can be identified are Target 10.7, which focuses on facilitating safe and responsible migration, Target 16.3, which emphasizes promoting the rule of law and equal access to justice, and Target 17.16, which highlights the importance of global partnerships for sustainable development.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 10.7.1: Recruitment cost borne by employee as a proportion of yearly income earned in country of destination.
• Indicator 16.3.1: Proportion of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized mechanisms.
• Indicator 17.16.1: Number of countries that have national sustainable development strategies, as reported by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Database.

The article does not explicitly mention indicators, but based on the identified targets, the following indicators can be used to measure progress: Indicator 10.7.1, which measures the recruitment cost borne by employees as a proportion of their yearly income in the country of destination, Indicator 16.3.1, which measures the proportion of victims of violence who report their victimization to competent authorities, and Indicator 17.16.1, which measures the number of countries with national sustainable development strategies.

4. Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: forbes.com