AIM OF THE PROJECT
Swedish immigration policy was liberalised in 2008, which aimed at increasing labour immigration from countries outside the EU/EEA. The project has investigated the increased migration from China and India since 2008. The increased migration from China and India is a new migration pattern. Sweden does not have any specific historical ties to China and India that can explain the migration, for instance, former colonial ties. The aim of the project was to explain how this new migration pattern was initiated and established.

The researchers in the project analysed the significance of social, political and economic factors, for instance how social networks influence firms’ recruitment of migrants, or how political institutions affect the behaviour of migrants. The project posed four main research questions: Why do an increasing number of firms in Sweden employ workers from China and India? Why do people from China and India decide to move to Sweden? How did they come in contact with Swedish employers? How does Swedish immigration policy influence the behaviour of migrants and employers?

IMPLEMENTATION
The research proceeded through three phases. In the first phase, Denis Frank analysed the changes in immigration policy 2008, and how it has affected the behaviour of employers and migrants. Furthermore, Frank made a comparison of immigration policy 2008-14 with that of 1954-72. In both periods, immigration policy was liberalised, and the period from 1954 to 1972 is still a formative one in Swedish immigration history.

In the second phase, Frank made a multiple case study of 13 firms that has employed migrants from China and India. Frank conducted qualitative interviews with managers that are responsible for the recruitment of foreign nationals, and he also analysed documentary sources on firms’ recruitment of migrants. This part of the project gave answer to questions such as: Why do firms in Sweden employ workers from India and China? What methods do managers use to find migrant workers?

In the third phase, Frank and Chia-Ling Yang conducted qualitative interviews with 49 migrants from China and India. Frank conducted the interviews with Indian nationals and Yang with Chinese nationals. The informants were employed in both high-skilled and low-skilled occupations. This part of the project gave answer to questions such as: Why do people from China and India decide to move to Sweden? How did they come in contact with Swedish employers? How do Chinese and Indian workers handle their different labour market positions in Sweden?

THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT RESULTS IN THE PROJECT
(1) The comparison of immigration policy 2008-14 with that of 1954-72 generated important results (Frank 2014, 2017b). In earlier research, a distinction is made between external migration control and internal migration control, or in other words, the control of the flow of people crossing state borders, and the surveillance of foreign nationals residing in the territory of the state. The reform of 2008 implied significant liberalisation of external migration control. However, the reform of internal control took a different direction: it increased the surveillance of migrant workers, and involved employers in the control process more deeply than in previous periods. Migrant workers became more dependent on the employers’ that hires them; for instance, migrants are tied to a specific employer the first two years of employment. Furthermore, the reforms increased employers influence on migrants opportunities to continue to reside in Sweden, and consequently if they should be granted permanent residency or not. Hence, the reforms increased the power imbalance between employers and migrant workers.

There are striking contrasts with the period 1954-72 in this internal dimension. During this period, migrants’ dependence on employers decreased (Frank 2014). Migrants were not tied to a specific employer, and during the end of the period migrants’ opportunities to settle permanently in Sweden increased significantly. The power imbalance between employers and migrant workers was less significant 1954-72 than during 2008-14.

The immigration regime of 2008 was introduced in a different socio-political context that that of 1954-72. The immigration regime of 1954-72 was shaped by the political-ideological dominance of the Social Democracy, whereas a right-wing government introduced the immigration policy of 2008, in what has been termed a neoliberal political context. The immigration regime of 2008 shapes the behaviour of migrants and employers in a different way than that of 1954-72, for instance presupposing migrants to be a more flexible workforce (Frank 2014). The historical comparison made it possible to identify the specific way in which the behaviour of migrants are governed, and how this has changed since the 1970s, which is an important result.

(2) The case study of firms that has employed migrants from China and India generated important results. The study focused on high tech firms in the upper segments of the labour market, for instance firms that are developing IT products. The rationale for focusing on this type of firm was twofold. Firstly, a large share of the migrants from China and India are highly skilled workers that are employed in the high tech economy. The firms that employ these migrants are an important driving force behind the migration. Secondly, there is a lack of research on the firms that are recruiting migrants to high-skilled occupations. The research on earlier periods of migration focused on firms that were recruiting migrants to working class occupations. The growing number of firms that are recruiting highly skilled migrants is still a new phenomena.

Managers’ decision to employ migrants is made within a specific social context, which influences recruitment practices. Managers are, for instance, often recruiting relatives and friends of already employed migrants, because it reduces the risks of hiring new workers. Earlier research has focused on the importance of such interpersonal relationships. However, interorganisational relationships also matter, for instance inter-firm relationships. Firms decisions to employ migrants are made within the context of an organisational field, and the relationships firms has with other organisations within the field influences when, how and why they employ migrants from specific national categories. The specific organisational field that has been analysed includes not only firms, but also migration authorities and universities. Firms might, for instance, collaborate with other organisations when they are considering employing foreign nationals (Frank 2017a). The significant influence that interorgansational relationships have on the recruitment of migrants is an important result.

(3) Earlier research has found that employers in the lower segments of the labour market associate migrants with behavioural dispositions that are appreciated in workers, for instance, being diligent and accepting lower wages than native workers. The specific attitudes to work that some migrant groups posses makes them an attractive workforce for employers in the lower segments of the labour market. The project has found that also managers that recruit high-skilled Indian and Chinese workers make such an association of social categories with different behavioural dispositions (Frank 2017a). Managers view high-skilled workers from China and India as more diligent and ambitious than native Swedish workers. Chinese and Indian workers do not only have qualifications that managers are searching for; they also have attitudes towards work that are appreciated by managers. These views contributed to making Chinese and Indian nationals an attractive workforce for managers. The interviews with high-skilled migrants gave support to these views. Migrants could, for instance, depict their own nationality as more hardworking than native Swedes. Furthermore, they argued that there was higher pressure on workers in their home country than in Sweden (Frank & Yang).

NEW RESEARCH QUESTIONS THAT HAS BEEN GENERATED BY THE PROJECT
Labour immigration of third country nationals became an important issue in the EU at the end of the 1990s. Some harmonisation of policies occurred, and member states opened up their borders to increased labour immigration. The reform of Swedish immigration policy in 2008 is part of this broader European development. One research question that has been generated is the specific development of Swedish immigration policy in an international comparative perspective. The reform liberalised external migration control. Simultaneously it restricted migrants’ rights in the labour market and increased their dependence on employers. Is this development specific to Sweden, or has similar changes occurred in other Western European countries? There is an historical dimension of this question. Since the 1970s, there has been a change in the view of migrant workers rights and their relationship to employers. Is this change specific to Sweden, or is it part of a broader change in Western Europe since the 1970s?

INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS OF THE PROJECT
One of the researchers, Chia-Ling Yang, is based at the National Kaohsiung Normal University in Taiwan. Between 2013 and 2016, Yang has travelled to Sweden once a year to do fieldwork in the project. The collaboration between Yang and Frank has been developed further during the project. Furthermore, Frank and Yang has made contacts with researchers and civil society organisations in other countries, such as India, Taiwan and China.

DIFFUSION OF THE RESULTS
The results have been published in international and national journals. We will continue to publish articles during 2018-19. We have participated in conferences in Sweden, India, Austria and Greece, and we have presented the results to actors in civil society and the political sphere.