"Such a signal will have a negative impact on the target group’s willingness to become an integrated part of Swedish society. This could have consequences such as lower labor market participation and more crime among the immigrant groups that the grant targeted."
Immigrants who voluntarily return to their countries of origin from 2026 would be eligible to receive up to 350,000 kronor, the government said last week.
The current financial assistance for voluntary returns provides a maximum of 10,000 kronor per adult or 5,000 per child, with a family limit of 40,000 kronor. The new proposal represents a 3,000% increase.
The new scheme, set to start in 2026, reflects a push by the right-wing government, which is being propped up by the far-right, anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, to reduce the number of newcomers in Sweden, particularly those who came seeking asylum.
The return scheme is only available to specific groups: refugees, quota refugees, individuals under subsidiary protection, those in exceptionally distressing circumstances, and their family members.
The goal is to encourage these groups to return to their countries of origin voluntarily with financial support.
This policy is a victory for the Sweden Democrats, but it should raise concerns among taxpayers. Paying people to leave Sweden seems counter-intuitive, especially for those who left their country seeking safety. Offering financial incentives to such refugees could endanger them, as they may still face risks in their home countries.
Furthermore, those who genuinely want to return to their countries of origin post-conflict should do so under their own steam, and pay ther own way.
As Malin Lernfelt said in Norran yesterday (in Swedish), the idea of using taxpayer money to directly fund people's lives in other countries is baffling. And anyway, doesn't the right moan endlessly about Swedish development aid going abroad? There is a very strong whiff of hypocrisy here.
And let's not forget that the government launched its own investigation to find ways to encourage more immigrants to voluntarily return to their home countries. The inquiry came up empty-handed: "No such method can be found".
The inquiry, led by Swedish economist Joakim Ruist, went on to explain that while such a policy might just about pay off financially in the very long-term, "it sends a signal to the grant’s target group that they are not welcome in Sweden – even to the extent that Sweden is willing to spend large amounts of money to get rid of them," he wrote.
"Such a signal will have a negative impact on the target group’s willingness to become an integrated part of Swedish society. This could have consequences such as lower labor market participation and more crime among the immigrant groups that the grant targeted."
Ruist concluded: "The potential direct fiscal gains are with high certainty small, while there is also some risk of societal harm of greater magnitudes."
According to Ruist, the risks will obviously outweigh the benefits. Even if, as evidenced in this article, the Swedish murder rate was lower in 2023 than in the 1970s, making people feel unwanted by society will not help reduce the increasing levels of gun crime in some areas.
Ruist recognised that the whole issue is draped in shades of grey, and needs a considered approach.
But when it's this feeble government making policy, the concepts of nuance and complexity are ignored in favor of placating its immigrant-hating Sweden Democrat overlords.