What should we make of Sweden’s net zero immigration?

Sweden fascinates policy scholars, and with good reason. While ostensibly part of the club of advanced, progressive Scandinavian democracies, Sweden does not walk in lock-step with its neighbors. Not only is the country quite willing to go its own way, it is also willing to make comparatively swift U-turns when it decides a policy needs to be dropped.
Sweden famously went its own way during the COVID-19 pandemic, refusing to lock down when all of its European neighbors did. Masks were mandatory only in health care settings; children continued to attend school. Distancing and working from home were voluntary, and there were no arrests of persons choosing to be outdoors or choosing to go without masks, as happened in several other countries. The Swedish government chose the path of developing “herd immunity,” a strategy rejected by experts in other countries.
Of course, the Swedish approach was, in retrospect, roundly vindicated. Sweden experienced fewer deaths per population than other high-income countries during the pandemic. In addition, unlike other countries that chose lockdowns, Sweden did not experience spikes in death due to increased domestic violence, lack of needed medical care for other conditions, and increased suicide and substance abuse. Their children also did not lose two years of schooling.
Sweden was also the first advanced democracy to make a comparatively swift U-turn on transgender medical care for children. Though in years past, Sweden permitted the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and even surgery on minor children suffering from gender dysphoria, in 2022 the government renounced that approach due to the lack of evidence that these measures improve outcomes for children, as well as increasing evidence that physical, even irreversible, harm may result from these measures. The first line of treatment in Sweden is now mental health support. Several nations have followed Sweden’s lead, including neighbors such as Norway and Denmark, and non-Scandinavian nations such as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
The Swedish propensity to go their own way was also on full display this week when the Swedish government announced that for the first time in 50 years, there was net negative immigration in the country, meaning that more people emigrated from Sweden than immigrated to Sweden. The Ministry of Justice attributed this trend to a decline in the number of asylum-seekers to the country, coupled with a decline in residence permits issued. Indeed, the government asserted that “Sweden is on track to have the lowest number of asylum seekers since 1997,” which stands out as rather extraordinary in the context of western Europe. The U.K., for example, sees 500-700 asylum-seekers arriving per day, typically on cross-channel dinghies.
Also interesting is that the government noted, “emigration increased among people born in countries such as Iraq, Somalia and Syria. That same year, net migration numbers for people born in these countries were negative.” These countries are highly unstable, and yet people in Sweden from those countries are choosing to emigrate in greater numbers than those who are arriving from those same countries.
This is a major reversal for Sweden. In 2015, the government opened its doors to any asylum-seekers that could reach Sweden. But the costs to Sweden from that generous offer have been brutal, and voters opted for a moderate-right coalition in 2022 that would listen to their concerns. Sweden, once with an enviably low crime rate, has seen crime surge since 2015. The country now has the dubious distinction of having the highest per capita gun death rate in the European Union. Gang violence is such that neighboring countries have come together to battle spillover of that violence from Sweden into their own lands. There are now frequent grenade and bomb strikes in Sweden, strikes that would have been unheard of only a few years ago.
An interesting element is that this is a Scandinavian country with impeccable progressive credentials. Sweden is a welfare state par excellence; it has one of the highest rates of gender equality in the world and is a leader on environmental issues. And yet Sweden has been willing to depart from what might be seen as the progressive consensus when it is not working.
Sweden is the foremost example of progressive realism to be found in the world today. While the term “progressive realism” was coined by Robert Wright to refer to a more humble, less interventionist, liberal foreign policy, the term makes much more sense when applied to the pragmatic path Sweden has chosen. If your ideals lead you to implement policy that would harm your citizens, don’t do it. Or if you have started in that direction, then reverse course as soon as you see the harm being done. Don’t be proud, don’t be rigid — just reject doing harm to your people in the name of idealism.
This type of progressive realism is also much more in line with our understanding of democratic governance. Many scholars have lamented the vast chasm between the attitudes and opinions of ordinary people and ruling elites within advanced democracies, and how this dissociation undermines democratic governance. Swedish progressive realism is one antidote to that malady, because the sure-fire way to know if harm is being done is to listen to one’s people. Sweden listened, and has been vindicated every time it has.
There’s a lesson in that for our own country.
Valerie M. Hudson is a university distinguished professor at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and a Deseret News contributor. Her views are her own.