Norway: Rising Immigration in a Welfare State

With one of the world’s highest per capita economic outputs and an advanced welfare state, Norway is an attractive destination for immigrants. While immigrants and their children today comprise nearly 21 percent of Norway’s population of 5.6 million, immigration is relatively new. Generally limited until the late 20th century, immigration grew in part due to demand related to the country’s oil sector and the government’s commitment to humanitarianism. Since the turn of the millennium, the foreign-born population has nearly quadrupled, reaching 931,000 as of 2024 and constituting nearly 16.8 percent of the population, with the children of immigrants comprising an additional 4 percent.

In fact, Norway’s overall population increase in the 21st century has largely been caused by immigration, which has been associated with both cultural pluralization and rising economic inequality. Both factors have been seen as a challenge. As a central driver of societal change in Norway, immigration has introduced a new complexity to a society that was formerly quite homogeneous in terms of values, religious affiliation, ethnicity, language, and lifestyles, and which is strongly devoted to equal distribution of social and economic benefits and the cultural norm of egalitarianism. These dynamics have created challenges, increasingly focused after the expansions of the European Union (of which Norway is not a member but nonetheless shares a free-movement area), the 2015-16 European migration and refugee crisis, and the post-invasion exodus from Ukraine. Norwegian leaders tend to approach immigration as a complex issue that is desirable for the labor market but also represents major risks to the treasured welfare model. As such, contemporary immigration policy has been created largely through the lens of protecting the welfare system, with restrictions in access to benefits for some—though not all—newcomers.

This country profile provides an overview of the historical and current trends in immigration to Norway. It focuses on the government’s efforts to selectively limit low-skilled labor while accommodating refugees and other immigrants, as well as the challenges that new arrivals present to the country’s much-valued welfare system.

Historical Trends and the Development of the Modern Immigration System

Norway has a long history of migration. People have moved in and out of the territory at least since the instigation of the Norwegian state around the year 900. They have come for different reasons and belonged to different classes and national origins, thus contributing to Norwegian society in different ways over the centuries.

A predominant feature has been relative geographical proximity. Most immigrants historically have come from Nordic neighbors (which have opened borders to each others’ residents since the 1950s), Germany, or other European countries. They have at many times represented the upper layers of society, contributing with vocational skills, military expertise, or higher education. During the centuries of Danish colonization (1537-1814), public administration was largely staffed by rulers in Copenhagen.

Concerning emigration, the most significant national experience was the great exodus to North America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, during which approximately one-fourth of Norway’s population (approximately 800,000 people) left, often to find work. This emigration left a considerable legacy: Approximately 4 million U.S. residents in 2022 claimed to have Norwegian ancestry or heritage, representing the United States’ 12th largest diaspora group, according to Migration Policy Institute (MPI) calculations.

“New Immigration” in the Modern Era

Nevertheless, most Norwegians today associate migration with people moving in. Modern immigration is a recent phenomenon, starting with labor migrants coming from places such as Asia and North Africa in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. Scholars have used the term “new immigration” to distinguish this rather recent movement from prior periods. This era, from the beginning involving low-skilled labor migrants from countries including Morocco, Pakistan, and Turkey, stands out in terms of its magnitude, complexity, and speed.

Norway was in many ways a latecomer to welcoming immigrant laborers compared to Western European countries such as France, Germany, and even neighboring Sweden. Its first year of net immigration was in 1961 (see Figure 1). In part this is because Norway was seen as less attractive; so long as the doors were open in these established destination states—and so long as there was a labor demand to propel immigration—migrants tended to head elsewhere. In 1970, the foreign born comprised only 1.3 percent of Norway’s population.

Gradually, however, Norway became, by circumstance and policy action, one of Europe’s major immigration destinations, at least by population share. This was the result of a new immigration pattern that emerged in the wake of a restrictionist turn across Europe in the beginning of the 1970s, but which took a slightly different form in Norway. European governments curbed low-skilled labor immigration as a response to market developments, including a global oil crisis which led to weakened labor demand. At the same time, many already-settled immigrants in other European countries had gained residence rights and did not leave, and many also brought families to join them through reunification policies, further dampening the demand for foreign-born workers.

Even though it had not yet become a major destination, Norway passed an immigration regulation in 1975 in accordance with the European trend. The intention of this law, labeled “the immigration stop,” was to prevent low-skilled foreign labor from coming, while selectively opening up pathways for in-demand skilled laborers for the growing petroleum sector following the discovery of major North Sea oil fields. Compared to other countries, Norway was less affected by the 1970s economic crisis, due to this newfound promising source of revenue, but nonetheless rushed to follow the rest of Western Europe out of concern about the risk of uncontrolled immigration and threats to the welfare state and the regulated labor market, as is discussed below. 

The 1975 regulation was originally intended as a temporary measure to come to grips with a new and unfamiliar phenomenon, but in fact marked the start of a modern immigration paradigm that would dominate Norwegian policy in years to come: intentionally allowing entries based on economic needs while fencing out migrants in sectors not deemed to have demand.

However, the regulation was accompanied by a broader shift—sometimes known as “the humanitarian turn”—which presented a paradox. Labor migrants faced selective restrictions, while other individuals were allowed in through family reunification and, for those with humanitarian claims, political asylum channels. The “stop” thus introduced a new era of immigration to Norway that was not entirely foreseen.

Key Policy Changes

At the time of the 1975 immigration stop, most new arrivals were low-skilled laborers from the Global South, and the number of these arrivals declined. Instead, family reunification and, after some years, asylum seekers and resettled refugees came to dominate the inflow (see Figure 3). These categories of immigrants were legitimized through human-rights-based laws and therefore could not be regulated through the 1975 act.

The inflow started to increase particularly after the late 1980s, so that immigrants comprised nearly 8 percent of the population by the mid-2000s, when two significant events occurred. For one, the European Union expanded in 2004 and 2007 to include multiple countries formerly allied with the Soviet Union with significantly weaker economies and where salaries tended to be substantially lower than those in Norway. Norway is not an EU Member State, as voters declined membership in a 1994 referendum, although it is affiliated with the bloc through the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. Through this treaty, Norway allows for freedom of movement for EU nationals and a free market governed from abroad. After the 2004 and 2007 EU expansions, immigration of low- and semi-skilled workers increased by the largest-ever margins in Norwegian history, primarily of Poles (who comprised 52 percent of EU workers in in 2011) and Lithuanians (21 percent) who found work in construction, the service sector, and other industries. As of 2024, immigrants from Poland comprised Norway’s largest foreign-born group and Lithuanians were the third largest group (see Table 1).

The development of international human-rights legislation and, later, commitments to the EEA Agreement changed the preconditions for the 1975 immigration stop, with significant consequences for migration management. After the EU expansions, Norway developed a twofold immigration policy regime: one for EU immigrants and another for family-related immigrants or those coming via the humanitarian channel (including asylum seekers and resettled refugees). These two major categories face different policies for accessing social benefits and societal inclusion. Humanitarian migrants are protected by human-rights laws but nonetheless face restrictions on entering. Yet if granted residency, they tend to have access to a rather comprehensive integration system, sometimes for many years (access is limited for some family migrants). This modern system was created by a 2003 integration law. EU migrants, on the other hand, may enter Norway without prior approval but must be economically self-supportive from the outset. Once employed, they have access to all Norwegian welfare rights and services on equal footing with natives.

The two main immigration categories also feature different challenges for authorities and the welfare state. The government’s major focus regarding humanitarian and family-based immigrants has been labor-market inclusion. These immigrants typically have lower levels of education and face problems in the country’s highly paid and skill-demanding labor regime, and therefore sometimes become dependent on welfare long term. (There is, however, large variation between groups). Cultural issues have also increasingly come to the fore, particularly for Muslim immigrants, who some Norwegians believe face pronounced integration difficulties. EU-origin immigrants, on the other hand, have tended to have an easier time settling, boosting economic growth and increasing flexibility in the private sector. Yet this group has also posed some challenges in terms of generating low-wage competition and other labor issues. Long-term erosion of labor rights has also been a concern. Lately, critics have also worried that EU-origin immigrants face integration barriers, suggesting that privileged access does not necessarily imply a smooth path to settlement and inclusion.

Taken together, the emergence of the humanitarian and family channels along with the European Economic Area’s free labor mobility have liberalized immigration to Norway since the 1990s. Consequently, authorities have become increasingly occupied with the pace, volume, and composition of arrivals, and the extent to which immigration can be managed to protect the regulated labor market, the welfare system’s sustainability, and social and cultural integration.

Europe’s 2015 Migration and Refugee Crisis and the Invasion of Ukraine

As elsewhere in Europe, the refugee and migration crisis of 2015-16 had a strong impact on Norway’s immigration capacity and public opinion. Norway received 31,000 asylum seekers in 2015, which placed considerable pressure on reception centers and municipalities.

Public uncertainty about control became one of the most important issues. EU authorities were effectively overwhelmed, and the severe limitations of EU asylum systems was a great concern. Norway, along with most other states in the free-movement zone, reinstated national border controls, and the parliament, amid a sense of crisis, passed a bipartisan package to address the inflow. Public opinion changed from a welcoming approach to a restrictive one. The welfare system’s sustainability was the core issue, and the conservative coalition government, which included the right-wing Progress Party, implemented new restrictions on social rights for newcomers. Not all proposals survived parliamentary debate, but generally speaking the crisis marked a shift in public opinion and a restrictionist turn in policymaking. Legislative changes limited family reunification rights, increased the use of temporary protection statuses, and reduced social security transfers. The introduction of waiting periods for new arrivals to access a number of welfare benefits was a key development. This change amounted to a breach of the commitment to equal treatment that had, until then, dominated the welfare system and affected all non-EEA immigrants. For the first time, the political conversation also centered more on considering return policies for individuals without residency status as well as citizenship revocation for those who had committed fraud.

Some of the biggest repercussions were in public discourse. Leaders called for a thorough overhaul of refugee policy, although this approach was somewhat derailed after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which prompted the rapid exodus of millions of Ukrainians. The record numbers of 2015 were surpassed by 2024, when there were more than 90,000 Ukrainians in Norway. Ukrainians in EEA countries received temporary protection on a collective basis, and from the beginning were offered privileged treatment on many accounts. Norwegian political leaders and the public were eager to show solidarity with the newcomers. As in other European countries, this approach sparked accusations that public and political attitudes on asylum were racialized, and that the sweeping support for Ukrainians (who tended to be European, Christian, and White) stood in contrast to the more restrictive approach towards refugees and other migrants from the Global South. As of this writing, the welcoming attitude towards Ukrainians had turned somewhat lukewarm, and the government had backtracked on measures such as permitting displaced Ukrainians to travel back and forth between Norway and Ukraine.

In 2024, the European Union endorsed a common policy approach, the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, representing a sweeping makeover of the system to emphasize speedy processing of asylum applications and increase returns of people without legal status. Norway has been slow in responding to the pact, which is by and large nonbinding for it as a non-Member State. But the pact will nevertheless become highly influential for a small and EU-dependent country that risks becoming an even more attractive asylum destination if it is seen as out of step with rising regional enforcement.

Protection of the Welfare State as a Precondition for Immigration Governance

The welfare state is a defining entity of modern Norway, both in practice and as a central feature of the national self-conception. The complex system of government-provided health care, education, child care, and other goods and services is treasured by virtually all Norwegians, and politicians have competed over ownership of the model’s founding ideas. In fact, the system was generated over decades through a long and complex interaction of economic, cultural, and political factors, and all the central institutions were in place by the late 1960s—roughly the same time the new period of immigration started. At that time, very few immigrants had settled and the issue of immigration was not politicized; none of the parties could know the degree to which both arrivals and debates over immigration would increase in the years to come.

As such, the welfare model took on the character of what has been called “bounded universalism,” based on solidarity for those within the nation. The tacit preconditions for accessing the welfare system were reciprocity norms that developed subtly and were based on a logic of “do your duty, claim your rights,” as coined by the labor movement. This involved an ethos of equal opportunity; income security via economic redistribution; empowerment of the disadvantaged through public education and free, high-quality health care; access to public services; and active labor market policies. Leaders considered this system a social investment that would pay dividends in the form of individuals’ contributions to the economy and society. The model is tax-based, generous (thus expensive), and generally accessible to all legal residents from the day of their arrival. Norway’s welfare system is consequently different from more contribution-based models such as those elsewhere in Europe, although it shares similarities with the Danish and Swedish systems.

The implications for immigration policy have been manifold. The provision of cash benefits and the principle of equal treatment made it important for the government to regulate access to the territory. The system’s generosity prompted concerns that it was vulnerable to abuse by those who had not paid in, leading to rules on selection and limitation, beginning with the immigration stop. Secondly, it was deemed essential to integrate newcomers, first and foremost, into working life, but also in society writ large. If the fundamental social structure was to be sustained, new inhabitants had to be made part of it. Leaders believed the system could not endure if significant parts of the population stayed outside regulated work, pressured wages and labor standards, or alternatively burdened social budgets. Without limiting who had access to the system, critics saw the potential for undermining the sense of unity and consensus.

The concept of absorption capacity was developed much later but applies here: There was deemed to be a limit to society’s capacity to include new members on a pace that did not create inequality detrimental to the system. This tension has been at the heart of Norway’s modern immigration governance since its inception.

Equal Treatment and Integration: A Success Story?

Compared to other immigrant destinations, Norway scores high on various inclusion matrices. Immigrants by and large have benefitted from its well-functioning liberal democracy and the aforementioned generous welfare system. The high living standard and inclusive approach to social rights have indisputably contributed to people’s well-being and made Norway a highly attractive immigration country.

Nevertheless, immigrants continue to lag behind the general population on a number of important social and economic parameters. Despite strong economic growth since the turn of the century, Norway has faced the same problems as its neighbors regarding labor market inclusion of immigrants with low levels of education. Poverty is largely associated with immigrants and is increasing.

Refugees constitute a particularly vulnerable category and are affected by a number of self-reinforcing mechanisms that tend to sustain what Norwegians have increasingly called “outsidership.” Attributes of the country’s welfare and labor market model and its wage structure (in which even low-skilled work is compensated with a relatively high salary) create a high threshold for employment. Consequently, refugees and other immigrants with low levels of education tend to rely on public benefits long term, which may reinforce other social problems such as poor language skills, social isolation, poor health, and lack of capacity to support their children’s education. Critics contend that the system amounts to “subsidized isolation” for these immigrants. The amount of welfare is a constant political battle involving delicate balances between providing support and not disincentivizing employment. The economic trap can also lead to residential segregation of low-income immigrants in certain neighborhoods, due to factors including high housing prices. Despite the fact that these segregated areas, particularly in Oslo, tend to have higher living standards than those common in other countries, research reveals residents may face reduced chances in life. There are also indications that immigrants face discrimination both in housing and the labor market. Structural and persistent segregation may be particularly troublesome in a country with strong egalitarian values, where deviation on many social indicators can re-emphasize marginalization.

At the same time, immigrants with more money, higher levels of education, and a good employment record will typically have a much better platform for social participation and mobility. Still, even highly skilled immigrants may face social and cultural isolation.

Recent longitudinal research nevertheless gives a more promising picture for immigrants’ children. In what has been labelled the “integration paradox,” the first generation may face inclusion challenges and therefore end up as long-term low-income earners, while their children benefit from the welfare state’s investments—including high-quality, accessible health care and education—to become socially mobile. Consequently, children of immigrants often make a great leap upwards socially, economically, and educationally, and some studies have found that the children of immigrants also tend to share Norwegian values.

Recent Policy Discussions

Norway’s equality-oriented culture and social structure can be demanding for people from places where such norms are less prevalent. At the same time, native Norwegians have expressed concerns that increasing diversity may undermine economic equity and what they believe to be core national values. As such, public discourse on multiculturalism has tended to be heated and polarized. The significant growth of the right-wing Progress Party (which polls suggest as of this writing was the most popular party) is an indication that many voters are critical of immigration and believe it leads to weak cultural and economic integration. Voices on the right often accuse immigrants of lack of will to participate in and adjust to Norwegian society and welfare scrounging, as well as overly lenient attitudes by policymakers. Those on the left, too, make hay of immigrants’ integration challenges, although they tend to blame welfare disbursements that are too small, weak political backing, and racism.

The major fault line in current discussions is between those who see problems with residential segregation, increasing violence among youth of immigrant backgrounds, gang criminality, and related issues, versus those who note that these issues affect just a minority of immigrants and all is going well with the majority. Both views can be buttressed by statistics. While immigration is a complex phenomenon with both desirable and less desirable effects for Norway’s welfare state, the societal consequences have depended on the pace and number of new arrivals, the resources they bring, and the extent to which they are included in and adjust to Norwegian life.

All the while, the shrinking of public budgets is a prevalent political issue as oil revenues decrease and the Norwegian population ages. The country’s absorption capacity has increasingly been discussed as a major challenge to the treasured Norwegian welfare model. Universality is at stake, and the system may be moving towards one that is more conditional and contribution-based, which could lead to a more layered and unequal social model. Now, 50 years after enactment of the “immigration stop,” the tensions between absorbing newcomers and maintaining the integrity of Norway’s welfare state are as prominent as ever.

Sources

Borevi, Karin. 2014. Multiculturalism and Welfare State Integration: Swedish Model Path Dependency. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 21 (6): 708-23. Available online.

Bratsberg, Bernt and Oddbjørn Raaum. 2021. Utenlandsk arbeidskraft i Norge 1990-2017. Oslo: Frisch Centre. Available online.

Bratsberg, Bernt, Oddbjørn Raaum, and Knut Røed. 2017. Immigrant Labor Market Integration across Admission Classes. Nordic Economic Policy Review 2017: 17-54. Available online.

Brochmann, Grete. 2019. Investigating Immigration and the Sustainability of the Norwegian Welfare State: The Role of Government Commissions. In Bridging the Gaps: Linking Research to Public Debates and Policy Making on Migration and Integration, eds. Martin Ruhs, Kristof Tamas, and Joakim Palme. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Available online.

---. 2022. Governing Immigration in the Scandinavian Welfare States. Control and Integration. In Controlling Immigration: A Comparative Perspective, eds. James F. Hollifield, Philip L. Martin, Pia M. Orrenius, and François Héran. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

---. 2022. Inclusion under Pressure: The Case of Norway. In The Exclusion of Immigrants from Welfare Programs: Cross-National Analysis and Contemporary Developments, ed. Edward A. Koning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 

Brochmann, Grete and Anniken Hagelund. 2012. Immigration Policy and the Scandinavian Welfare State 1945-2010. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Brochmann, Grete and Knut Kjeldstadli. 2008. A History of Immigration: The Case of Norway 900-2000. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

Esping-Andersen, Gösta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Hermansen, Are Skeie. 2016. Moving Up or Falling Behind? Intergenerational Socioeconomic Transmission among Children of Immigrants in Norway. European Sociological Review 32 (5): 675-89.

---. 2017. Et egalitært og velferdsstatlig integreringsparadoks? Om sosioøkonomisk integrering blant innvandrere og deres etterkommere i Norge. Norsk sosiologisk tidsskrift (1): 15-34. Available online.

Joppke, Christian. 2008. Immigration and the Identity of Citizenship: The Paradox of Universalism. Citizenship Studies 12 (6): 533-46.

Kangas, Olli and Jon Kvist. 2019. Nordic Welfare States. In Routledge Handbook of the Welfare State, ed. Bent Greve. London and New York: Routledge.

Norwegian Government. N.d. NOU 2011:7 Velferd og migrasjon - den norske modellens framtid. Accessed January 9, 2025. Available online.

---. N.d. NOU 2017:2 Integrasjon og tillit — Langsiktige konsekvenser av høy innvandring. Accessed January 9, 2025. Available online.

Sejersted, Francis. 2011. The Age of Social Democracy: Norway and Sweden in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Statistics Norway. N.d. Facts about Immigration. Accessed January 9, 2025. Available online.

Staver, Anne, Jan Paul Brekke, and Susanne Søholt. 2019. Scandinavia's Segregated Cities: Policies, Strategies and Ideals. Oslo: Oslo Metropolitan University. Available online.