Research Toolkit

MIPEX III Key findings

Since the project aims to make integration policy data both visible and usable to the public, researchers are incorporating it into their research, making MIPEX a platform for greater comparative knowledge on integration. It provides a systematic categorisation across 7 areas of expertise and currently across 31 countries.

Its evaluation framework turns policies into numbers, using national experts to report the facts in law and policy. The scores and scales provide for clear and coherent interpretations based on standards for equal treatment. The full results and expert commentary can be downloaded, and you can use the interactive online tool to compare countries.

The entire data set can be used for in-depth quantitative and qualitative research on specific issues, for comparison across countries and to evaluate how different factors impact on policies and why countries differ from each other. To link legal and societal integration, multivariate analysis can compare policies to funding, public and migrant opinion data, the results of official evaluations, and changes in integration statistics.

MIPEX raw data   
(2007 & 2010)

Download all the scores for all indicators.

 

 

 

Questionnaire comments
(2007 & 2010)

Download extra comments from the country experts and MPG desk research.

What are the highest standards used by MIPEX?

MIPEX identifies the highest European or international standards aimed at achieving equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities for all residents.

How does MIPEX decide the scores?

There are 148 policy indicators on migrant integration in the MIPEX. These have been designed to benchmark current laws and policies against the highest standards through consultations with top scholars and institutions using and conducting comparative research in their area of expertise.

A policy indicator is a question relating to a specific policy component of one of the 7 policy areas. For each answer, there are 3 options. The maximum of 3 points is awarded when policies meet the highest standards for equal treatment.

Within each of the 7 policy areas, the indicator scores are averaged together to give one of 4 dimension scores which examine the same aspect of policy. The 4 dimension scores are then averaged together to give the policy area score for each of the 7 policy areas per country which, averaged together one more time, lead to the overall scores for each country. In order to make rankings and comparisons, the initial 1-3 scale is converted into a 0-100 scale for dimensions and policy areas, where 100% is the top score.

...read more

Experts

Unlike indexes based on expert opinion, MIPEX is based on public laws, policies and research.

In every country, independent scholars and practitioners in migration law, education and anti-discrimination filled out the score for each indicator based on the country’s publicly available documents as of May 2010.

Scores for March 2007 were also obtained for new indicators in areas other than education (new policy area).

All scores were anonymously peer-reviewed by a second expert.

The Migration Policy Group moderated any discrepancies and checked the completed questionnaires for consistency across strands and countries over time.

Finally, national experts provided input on policy changes and the reasons behind them.

 

... see the full list of experts

OVERALL SCORES 2010 - Country results

Click on the map to dig into the in-depth results for each country.

The research process

The OPC scientific partners for each strand reviewed the previous MIPEX II indicators to guarantee that they were clearly worded, policy-relevant, and sustainable for future updating. The scientific partner on education designed an entirely new strand on the education of migrant pupils. After the consultations, more indicators were added. With the final review of the indicators among the scientific partners, MPG approved the final list of 148 indicators.

Three questionnaires were designed: one on the five strands concerning foreigners’ law (labour market mobility; family reunion; long-term residence; political participation; and access to nationality); one on education; and one on anti-discrimination. The three questionnaires corresponded to the three areas of expertise required for the OPC study. National experts were subcontracted in the countries included in the EIF project, as well as self-financing countries. In total, experts worked in the 27 EU Member States, as well as Canada, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States.  The national teams ranged from 2 to 6 experts, depending on their available expertise in the three areas.

The indicators were completed by the national experts and anonymously double-checked by peer reviewers. The new education strand was only completed for 2010. MPG’s central research coordinator staff checked both the experts’ and peer reviewers’ responses to guarantee that they properly understood the questions and answered them in a consistent manner as in other countries. In each country there were a handful of questions where expert and peer reviewer disagreed. The MPG central research team mediated an anonymous discussion between the two in order to obtain the correct response based on publically-available data and legal texts.

The finalised data for the 31 countries was inputted and analysed centrally by the MPG team. Correlation analysis was undertaken in order to identify trends within and between policies. A search and collection of available European public opinion data was also made for the OPC website. Comparative statistics on immigration and integration in each of the countries were also gathered for the national country profiles. Country profile contributors were secured in most countries in order to provide additional contextual information. The aim was to better understand why policies changed and what evidence and evaluations were used to justify and implement policy changes.  In most cases, the country profile contributor was selected from among the national experts and peer reviewers. National partners were involved in some countries where they possess broader and more policy-relevant expertise. Based on the results and the country profile contributions, the MPG team was able to write up national country profiles. They focused on recent policy changes and investigated the justifications and potential impact of these changes. The results were also written up for each of the seven policy strands as well as for the overall score. These findings analysed the strengths and weaknesses for the 31 countries as well as for all EU Member States, the best and worst practices, as well as the major trends and changes in the past three years.