Keywords

Introduction

Norway is often referred to as a high-trust society, showing not just a high level of institutional trust but also small differences between people and groups (Wollebæk et al., 2012). This has resulted in equity as a core value and a phenomenon constituting a significant part of the so-called Norwegian or Nordic model (Kautto, 2010; Rothstein & Uslaner, 2005).

However, the Covid-19 pandemic—particularly the way Norwegian society handled the challenges associated with the pandemic—similarly to what Valdez (2023, this volume) found in Sweden, revealed significant differences between majority and the minority groups (Elgersma et al., 2021). Most of these differences are not visible on a daily basis, such as the proportion of those who were vaccinated for protection against Covid-19 and differences related to serious illness and death as a result of a Covid-19 infection.

In this chapter, I am partly concerned with the reasons for these differences, as well as the notion that the differences serve as a prism to discuss the different types of integration in the multicultural Norway of 2022. The analyses are based on secondary quantitative data as well as qualitative interviews with young adults with an immigrant background living in Norway. In particular, I choose to emphasise similarities and differences between immigrants with long and short residences. More specifically, attention is focused on immigrants with a Pakistani background—a group that started to immigrate to Norway in the late 1960s—in contrast to immigrants originating from Poland. To a large extent, the latter group arrived in Norway following the 2004 EU enlargement.

In Norway, integration is largely understood in terms of participation in education or the labour market. Although participation implies all societal arenas, the economic sphere is regarded as crucial in terms of education and working life. However, inspired by Marshall (1950), social scientists claim that there is more to citizenship than participation. According to Marshall, citizenship has both a social and a legal dimension. The latter deals with objective matters, such as holding a passport and being a member of a nation. In contrast, the social dimension implies affiliation and a sense of belonging to a society (Brubaker, 1989; Joppke, 2007; Crul & Schneider, 2010; Brochmann & Midtbøen, 2021).

One explanation as to why there are differences between the majority and minority populations with regard to support for the authorities’ vaccination ambitions is a lack of information and differences in knowledge about the value of vaccines (Christensen & Lægereid, 2020). Another explanation is the high level of institutional trust in Scandinavia (Rothstein & Stolle, 2008), with the majority population appearing to be more loyal than minority groups. Minorities are often portrayed as being more loyal to others within their minority group (see also Putnam’s 2000 distinction between bonding versus bridging social capital, and the Scandinavian type of “institutional social capital”, which refers to institutional trust; Kumlin & Rothstein, 2005).

A theoretical framework revealing different forms of attachment by loyalty seems relevant to the subject of this chapter. Arvidson and Axelsson (2021, p. 41) suggest that loyalty can be understood as “a bond to something specific”. Moreover, loyalty is about affiliation over time. Trust, on the other hand, whether generalised or institutional, imply some kind of reliance. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, trust is “confidence in or reliance on some quality or attribute of a person or thing, or the truth of a statement.”

Inspired by Arvidson and Axelsson (2021), I distinguish between vertical loyalty, often associated with institutional trust, and horizontal loyalty, which is based on links between individuals within a particular group. This distinction highlights integration in terms of different bases of belonging. Furthermore, focusing on belonging, such as subjectively perceived links, entails a criticism of the politicised understanding of integration as a concept that solely captures participation.

The chapter is organised as follows: first, an overview of the theoretical framework that forms the basis for the analysis is given. Then the data and methods are presented before I enter the empirical and central discoveries. At the end of the chapter, the findings are discussed in light of an overall framework of how experiences from the pandemic can be used as a prism to understand more of the important conditions for integration, in general, and, more specifically, how integration is linked to economic and cultural participation.

Analytical Framework

Integration and loyalty constitute the central analytical concepts of this chapter. Regarding integration, as discussed in the volume of which this chapter is part, one cannot refer to a specific theory (Lerpold et al., 2023). Instead, the term is to be understood as part of a broader theme. There are, however, some key characteristics in the debate on integration and how it is utilised in the coming analysis that are central to point out. First, integration is a term that denotes both a process and a goal. A society characterised by integration, as opposed to assimilation, constitutes citizens holding equal opportunities, without being identical. Consequently, there is a desire to preserve diversity (such as freedom of religion) but at the same time to uphold certain common rules (such as respect for individual rights). Others argue in favour of a policy that entails major changes in which individuals are increasingly mainstreamed. The line of assimilation receives much criticism for being too paternalistic and for not recognising the culture and fundamental human rights of minority groups (Alba & Nee, 1997). Segmented assimilation theory is arguably in an intermediate position, with a particular focus on the children of immigrants along with their upward or downward mobilisation within different segments of society (Zhou, 1997).

The latter is relevant for understanding how individuals and groups adapt to inclusionary and exclusionary practices in different institutions. Consequently, the central questions within integration policy are the conditions for different citizens to be (in terms of participation), and feel as (a sense of belonging), a part of larger spheres in society. The system of education and the labour market are not random institutions. In Norway, as already mentioned, integration is often understood in terms of having a job or attending school. Consequently, the authorities are concerned that all individuals obtain the required skills so that they are in a position where they can get ordinary jobs in the labour market. Having a job, according to the authorities, is crucial to the individual’s self-realisation and economic independence; at the same time, it is also crucial that the welfare state is a collective goal (Dølvik et al., 2015). Consequently, we rely on a large proportion of the adult population to contribute through taxes instead of being an economic burden on society.

The second term that is central to subsequent analyses is loyalty. Arvidson and Axelsson (2021) discuss the term in its own right and the significance of social dimensions to loyalty. In this chapter, loyalty is relevant because it highlights how different forms of attachment provide different conditions for action—including getting vaccinated or not. By introducing a distinction between voluntary and involuntary loyalty, Arvidson and Axelsson offer a concept that captures how citizens can act based on different types of considerations, both related to the authorities and to their own group. Moreover, loyalty can have a form of internalised values, but it can also be an outcome of external pressures. In this way, loyalty differs from trust, which can also be aimed at both groups and institutions, but which is primarily either high or low. Regarding loyalty and the distinction between institutions and groups, Arvidson and Axelsson introduce a division between vertical and horizontal loyalty. While the former is aimed at institutions upwards in the system, horizontal loyalty is aimed at other individuals or groups at the same level.

The two dimensions, voluntary vs involuntary and vertical vs horizontal, can be assembled, collectively making a four-field table. Table 13.1 presents such a four-field table with various descriptions—close to ideal types—that may constitute theoretical abstracts of how different combinations may affect the propensity to be vaccinated against Covid-19.

Table 13.1 Four-field table: dimensions of loyalty
Full size table

Field 1—the left upper quadrant—comprises a combination of loyalty that is both voluntary and vertical. These will typically be people who are characterised by a high degree of institutional trust. Furthermore, it is appropriate to include people with a particularly large social commitment to a specific issue, such as public health. In Field 2—the right upper quadrant—loyalty is voluntary and horizontal. This may be relevant in a situation in which there are close ties between members of a group that are at the same level in terms of power and where they are in the chain of governance. Field 3—left lower quadrant—is a combination where loyalty is vertical, for instance, with links to those in power and involuntarily. This is a situation with strong authority, where governance is done through mandatory decisions and where there are clear sanctions aimed at those who do not follow the instructions. The last combination, Field 4—right lower quadrant—consists of a combination in which loyalty is involuntary and horizontal. This situation is typically characterised by strong social control, either negative or positive. The key aspect is that the control is assigned to a group that the individual is a part of, which means that the options are reduced.

Obviously, loyalty and trust are two concepts with several similarities. First, trust is also a relationship that can be vertical, to institutions, and horizontal, when there are individuals in-between (Kumlin & Rothstein, 2005). However, it is more difficult to understand involuntary trust. A basic principle of trust is that the concept is positive, in accordance with loyalty. The difference is that you can follow an instruction loyally, even if you do not believe or put trust in the basis for the decision. Currently, we can distinguish between voluntary loyalty, pointing to an internalised form of either institutional or generalised trust. Involuntary loyalty is not about trust but will be perceived as external pressure, which in extreme circumstances can appear as undesirable coercion.

Data and Methods

This chapter is based on publicly available statistics on employment and the proportion of people vaccinated in different groups. The statistics are published by Folkhelseinstituttet, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. The purpose was not to carry out an in-depth statistical analysis. Rather, the aim is to reveal key differences and similarities that call for explanations. Employment is used as an indicator of economic integration. In the political debate about the situation of the immigrant population, economic integration is often understood as a suitable proxy for integration in other spheres as well. The present analysis challenges this perception.

Statistics show that Covid-19 vaccination rates differ a lot between different immigrant groups (Nilsen et al., 2021). Unfortunately, we do not know why these differences occur, but research reveals that length of residence, education and social contact with the majority population fail to provide sufficient explanations. Nevertheless, as we shall see, the proportion of immigrants who are vaccinated seems to be related to institutional and social trust. Based on this understanding, I suggest interpreting the vaccination rate as a proxy of cultural integration. The vaccination rate is a valid indicator, as it correlates with the prevailing ideology given by the medical authorities and politicians in Norway. By compiling figures for employment and the proportion of those who have been vaccinated among the majority and different minority groups, we gain insight into how the two conditions may correlate.

In addition to statistical data, I also use qualitative material consisting of interviews with 14 people of Pakistani and Polish backgrounds. I conducted interviews with these informants for another project on inclusion in working life, but I had the opportunity to contact them again when researching this chapter. The two groups are interesting as they arrived mainly as labour immigrants, with the difference that the Pakistani group was dominant in the first phase of modern immigration, from the late 1960s, while Polish immigrants have dominated labour immigration in Norway since the 2004 EU enlargement. The informants have in common that they are young adults, aged 25–35 years. Consequently, migrants from both groups have essentially the same common reasons for moving to Norway. However, there are also clearly significant differences: while the informants from the Pakistani group are mainly second-generation immigrants, the informants from the Polish group were born in Poland. Regardless, this difference does not necessarily represent a decisive criticism given that the analyses from Nilsen et al. (2021) are correct. They show that length of residence has no impact on vaccination propensity, rather there are other factors, which is what is examined in this chapter. Nevertheless, it was a crucial criterion for selecting informants that they had good knowledge of Norwegian society, had a full-time job for at least five years, as well as that they spoke and wrote Norwegian. Therefore, I only include informants who have in common that they have resided in Norway for at least five years, which is the minimum number of years required to apply for citizenship in Norway.

Covid-19 and Immigrants in Norway

Covid-19 triggered major debates about causes, politics, and, specifically, why the pandemic seems to have affected different groups differently. An independent Covid-19 commission was established to conduct a comprehensive review and assessment of the management of the pandemic by the Norwegian authorities. The Commission examined all relevant aspects of the pandemic management. In a white paper published in early spring 2022 (NOU, 2022), current research and experiences were summarised. A major question was related to why immigrants were apparently harder hit than the rest of the population. The commission pointed out that the immigrant population was overrepresented among the infected and seriously ill, while they were underrepresented among those vaccinated. Furthermore, they show that it took a long time for authorities to implement measures specifically aimed at this part of the population (NOU, 2022, p. 12).

The report was based on assessments of national and international research and also addressed whether genetic factors can explain why immigrants were hit harder by the pandemic. Currently, this question cannot be fully answered, as there is not sufficient data. Nevertheless, we know that immigrants were much more affected by Covid-19 and that there were differences between the majority and the minority populations (Diaz et al., 2021). The infection rate was particularly high in households with a background from Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and Turkey, as well as when controlling for age, number of household members and geography (NOU, 2022, p. 395).

In addition to the possible significance of genetic differences, other factors are highlighted. As already mentioned, immigrants’ exposure is linked to a great extent by living in larger households. Further, these are groups that often have jobs that cannot be performed from home, including, among others, public communication, grocery stores and health care, all of which require employees to be physically at the workplace. No matter which explanation is correct, it is interesting to note that although Pakistanis had higher infection rates than native Norwegians, their vaccination rates were comparable. Obviously, one explanation is that it took longer for the vaccination rate among Pakistanis to take off. Another explanation concerns communication challenges, including the fact that it took a long time for important information to be translated and reach all sectors of the population (Brekke, 2021). At the same time, it is clear that while translation is necessary, it is not sufficient to ensure change. An important element is that all parts of the population have confidence in what the authorities are telling them. A lack of trust is highlighted as an explanation in several contexts, particularly whether this could be a reason why infection-tracking teams did not receive many close contacts from immigrant populations.

Overall, we see that the differences are explained by structural factors, differences in language and knowledge, as well as cultural inequality, perhaps also of segregation as in Valdez’s study of Somalis in Sweden (2023, this volume). These are all aspects of integration. Consequently, the difference between the majority and the minority can be interpreted as an expression of a lack of integration, which motivates the questions asked in this chapter.

Economic and Cultural Integration

The political debate on integration often concentrates on participation in education and work. For this reason, discrimination represents a significant obstacle to achieving integration. Field experiments conducted in Norway show that the discrimination rate in terms of lower call-back rates for job applications with Pakistani names is approximately 25 per cent (Midtbøen, 2014; Birkelund et al., 2020). Obviously, discrimination is negative for individuals. In addition, systematic discrimination is negative on a societal level as it increases demographic and taxation challenges in the welfare state, specifically regarding how many working people are needed (dependency ratio) to support people out of the work force (e.g. children and pensioners).

There are several reasons why participation in education and working life is held up as important. First, work ensures economic independence for the individual. Second, it is crucial that people contribute to the common good by paying taxes. Third, working life is an arena that produces integration and creates trust (Rogstad & Reegård, 2018). At the workplace, you meet other people, learn the Norwegian culture and, consequently, become part of the working life that affects identity on the individual level. On a political level, work is often presented as a means to fulfil a dream—constituting the meaning of life. The so-called work-line is decisive and expressed in several ways, especially through Norwegian gender equality policies and efforts to develop a strong welfare state, both of which have a strong focus on women’s opportunities to have paid work by removing barriers and by building up welfare and care arrangements.

Consequently, a fundamental assumption is that economic and cultural integration is interrelated: if a person becomes economically integrated, he or she will eventually be culturally integrated as well. However, the question is whether this is indeed the case. Some answers are presented in Fig. 13.1, which shows the employed rates and the share who were vaccinated against Covid-19. Therefore, the premise of the comparison is that the Covid-19 vaccine is a valid indicator of cultural integration; we will return to this, suggesting that the action can be interpreted as an expression of whether one is loyal to the Norwegian authorities’ strong call for everyone to be vaccinated.

Fig. 13.1
A double bar graph denotes the proportion of vaccination rate and employment rate in Poland, Lithuania, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the majority population. The followings are the vaccination rate and employment rates of the countries. Poland 49,70. Lithuania, 50,75. Afghanistan, 85,59. Pakistan, 89,55, and the majority population, 93,70. The values are estimated.

Covid-vaccinated (one dose) on 15 November 2021 and employed in 2021 in different groups based on country of origin (in % of the full population of each group and those aged 16–66, respectively). Sources: FHI (2021), SSB (2022))

Full size image

Figure 13.1 highlights an interesting pattern when assembling the two objectives of cultural and economic integration based on average figures for the entire population. Among the majority population, about 70.2 per cent were employed in November 2021. One main reason for the high level is that a large proportion of women are also employed. Figure 13.1 also shows that the proportion who were vaccinated in the autumn of 2021 was high among the majority population (93.8 per cent). The last 6.2 per cent are a mixture of people who, for various reasons, cannot or will not be vaccinated.

What is the situation for minority groups? According to the information presented in Fig. 13.1, there are large differences between the groups. Furthermore, there is a distinction between established labour immigrants (with a long migrant history) and new labour immigrants (with a shorter migrant history). The former group includes people with backgrounds in Pakistan and Afghanistan, while Lithuania and Poland are key countries of migrant workers since 2000. Furthermore, employment among the oldest labour immigrant groups is slightly more than 50 per cent compared to 75 per cent among labour immigrants from Lithuania and Poland. Consequently, the latter groups are employed at a level approximately in line with the majority population. If the level of employment is accepted as a valid indicator of both economic and cultural integration, it is reasonable to assume that the distribution of employment would correspond to the differences in the level of the proportion of those who have been vaccinated.

Figure 13.1 shows that there are significant differences between the groups, but the pattern is not what we expected. Surprisingly, a lower proportion of new migrant workers are vaccinated than among the group who came first. The differences are marked: while more than 80 per cent of the groups from Pakistan and Afghanistan were vaccinated before 15 November 2021, less than 50 per cent of labour immigrants from Lithuania and Poland were. Consequently, we can establish that the trends for employment and vaccination point in different directions when comparing different groups of labour immigrants.

Thus, the next question is how the links between cultural and economic integration should be understood. Subsequently, I will use different forms of loyalty, as stated in Table 13.1. Empirically, this part is based on qualitative interviews with young adults with Pakistani and Polish backgrounds.

Voluntary Vertical Loyalty

Field 1 combines willingness and vertical loyalty. This is a form of social engagement that entails institutional trust. Regarding questions about differences in who has been vaccinated, it is reasonable to assume that variations in institutional trust are decisive. First, and foremost, it affects who endorses or, more specifically, puts trust in the information provided by public authorities. The fact that loyalty is voluntary implies that the trust has been internalised, which distinguishes it from what we can refer to as external loyalty, where one acts according to the wishes of the authorities, but only out of external coercion or to avoid negative sanctions (this form constitutes Field 3 in Table 13.1).

In the qualitative interviews, it emerges that this type of loyalty is widespread, especially among the group of Pakistani immigrants who had been in Norway for a long time. Some illustrative quotes are as follows:

For me, it’s like we are obliged to take the vaccine. Of course, it’s not something I want, but who wants a syringe in my arm. (Pakistani man, 28)

We all have to contribute. (Pakistani woman, 23)

What do I know about medicine? Try to keep up, but it’s not that easy. Difficult information. (Pakistani man, 29)

Among the interviews with the Polish group, it was not difficult to find quotes expressing scepticism about the authorities. Scepticism, however, was also present and expressed by the informants with Pakistani backgrounds, just as some from the majority population. Admittedly, these are marginal groups, but they exist and they have come to terms with public discourse. For instance, there were a number of public demonstrations and, in social media, a great many opponents to the public agenda. In different ways, they argue that one should not blindly listen to the authorities, just like anti-vaccinators in many other West European countries.

In order to identify differences in the data, it is relevant to point out non-findings: among Polish migrant workers, no one advocated following the advice of the Norwegian authorities. During the interviews, a number of different people and institutions were mentioned and referred to, but it was striking that Norwegian political authorities and health leaders did not appear to be relevant. On the other hand, values within the Polish community were referred to as significant. Consequently, a form of horizontal loyalty seems to dominate over vertical loyalty. One possible explanation is that many of the Poles in Norway have family in their home country, including primary families. Typical examples of the latter are male craftsmen who work in Norway while they have a wife and children in Poland. Thus, the male Poles fit into a category within transnational studies, where they physically find themselves in one country, but are mentally in a second country. This is relevant in this context, because vaccination rates in Poland have been low throughout the pandemic.

It is relevant to point out that the vaccination rates in Pakistan is low. Consequently, the difference seems to be that the Pakistani group is more integrated in Norway. Based on the data I have available, I cannot determine if the difference is to be understood as an outcome of the length of residence; typically, members of the Pakistani group in Norway have large households and, thereby, a wider affiliation. Nevertheless, an important conclusion is that cultural and economic integration do not always follow the same pattern and it is not necessarily that one follows the other. This conclusion contrasts with the authorities’ unilateral focus on the fact that work leads to integration in a broad sense. In other words, voluntary vertical trust is differently distributed within labour migrant groups.

Voluntary Horizontal Trust

The second route combines voluntary and horizontal trust. According to the literature on transnational ties (Vertovec, 2009), there are often important bonds within ethnic groups living in different countries. These bonds are vital not just as a source for identity formation but also for understanding praxis and integration in a new country. Migrants and people living in exile tend to use their country of origin as a main reference for a long period. An important question, which we do not know the answer to, is for how long. The perspective is also relevant regarding generalised trust, which links people within the same group.

The interviews with Polish labour migrants reveal that many of them see Norway as a place where they have worked for a period of time, while Poland is the place they live and where they envision having a family and getting old.

I’m going to be working here for a while. It’s nice, but I go home most of the holidays. My wife and first daughter live in Poland. I don’t think there’s much for them here. (Polish man, 27).

Nor was it just about having a family. One of the informants, a 25-year-old man, told me that he did not know much about the future, but that he was far from sure it would be in Norway.

I don’t know how long I’m going to stay in Norway. Don’t get me wrong, I’m fine. And I don’t have to think about anyone, but myself. In a few years, it might be different, I hope to be married and have children. If so, I don’t know if I want to live in Norway. I don’t know. (Polish man, 25)

It was also advocated that in Poland, one is more concerned with family than with the authorities:

[t]o put it simply, we don’t rely so much on the authorities. If you know what I mean. Why would we do that? I don’t think so many people do. The history of Poland tells us that we should not. (Polish woman, 27)

These quotes are largely consistent with research on why immigrants seem to be particularly vulnerable.

Indseth et al. (2021) present several factors that are relevant in this context. In particular, the importance of travelling is pointed out, which is important for many migrant workers, who often have families in other countries. Regarding migrant workers from Pakistani and Polish backgrounds, it is probably the case that Poles travel to their home country more often than the Pakistani group. Several explanations to this fact can be given: Poland is geographically closer to Norway than Pakistan, both countries are part of the Schengen area, more people have primary families (spouses and children) in the country of origin among the Polish group. Thus, it is likely that Poles are more exposed in the form of physical travel.

Another explanation is related to communication. Migrant workers are not entitled to language training in Norway, and, thus, it is reasonable to assume that there will be systematic differences between Pakistani and Polish migrant workers with regards to how good their Norwegian is. Among other things, Brekke (2021) point out that communication during the Covid-19 pandemic, in the sense of having a message that reaches out to everyone and is understood among different citizens, was challenging.

Involuntary Vertical Loyalty

With the third field in Table 13.1, attention is placed on vertical loyalty that is involuntary. For example, if you follow the advice of the authorities because you feel pressured through sanctions or coercion.

In Norway, although vaccination was not compulsory, many individuals experienced and observed that there were some strong normative sanctions targeting groups that did not want, or were not able, to be vaccinated. The immigrant population also received negative coverage when it emerged that there was, on average, lower vaccine coverage among persons with an immigrant background. The authorities actively worked to ensure that the message that Covid-19 vaccines were free was disseminated in several languages. Furthermore, quick tests were available for free.

However, despite emphasising that vaccination in Norway is voluntary, it may be questioned whether it is perceived as voluntary at all. There is at least some doubt that the health authorities had a double message. Thus, the vaccine was presented as voluntary; all groups were highly encouraged to be vaccinated—for your own security and to help others by not putting them at risk. In Norway, where the population endorses the authorities, there was considerable support and confidence directed towards the authorities’ regulations. Some of the restrictions met resistance, such as the ban on people visiting their own cabins during Easter in 2021. Nevertheless, the vast majority followed the authorities’ regulations.

In some cases, more pressure was placed on the population than was conveyed through government announcements, such as the freedom of movement within areas in Norway and visiting countries with a high infection rate. Even more invasive were the closure of schools and the fact that workplaces were required to facilitate working from home, where possible. Furthermore, the use of face masks was mandatory when in a store or travelling on public transport. In this way, society appeared to be highly regulated during the pandemic. At the same time, Norway differed from many other countries in that there was no distinction in access to events for people with or without proof of vaccination, recovery or testing. Therefore, Norwegian measures seemed legitimate and conspicuously collective. The crucial thing was where you lived because individuals had to follow both national and local measures.

The situation for migrant workers is also important and illustrative. When there were strong regulations related to travel between countries, labour immigrants were severely affected. If they stayed in Norway, they could not receive family visits and, if they went home, it was difficult to return. In this way, the pandemic began to highlight the role of immigrant labour in the Norwegian economy.

I don’t know what to do. If I want to stay here, I have to take a vaccine, like all Norwegians. (Polish man, 26)

Many were unsure about giving up their contacts. I mean, I’ve taken a vaccine, but I don’t know about the people I’ve been with. (Pakistani man, 32)

In the interviews, it was stated that many were uncertain about what the right thing to do was. In the quotes above, we can also sense some ambivalence that many expressed. This means that they faced pressure to take a vaccine if they were to function in Norway, while several expressed trust in what the authorities would use the information for. It seems that external loyalty was imposed on them. Consequently, the fact that they had agreed to be vaccinated was not necessarily something they did because they relied on information from the Norwegian authorities, but because they accepted that adhering to the authorities was a key premise for staying in Norway. However, this should be of particular importance among the Poles as they travel more to visit Poland than the migrants within the Pakistani group visit Pakistan.

Involuntary Horizontal Loyalty

The last field, Field 4 in Table 13.1 points out that loyalty to one’s own group does not have to be perceived as voluntary. This may occur if a person who wants to get vaccinated but does not do so because key players in their own group discourage them. In debates about immigrant communities, this is a situation that is typically associated with negative social control. In many contexts, this is used to understand child rearing in some minority families and how they may conflict with majority values (Friberg and Sterri, 2021).

The question was whether a similar type of regulatory mechanism could be found that may explain the differences in vaccination rates. The interviews indicate examples that can be interpreted within such an understanding, but the findings are far from unambiguous. Among other things, a Polish woman explained her decision as follows:

I think most people in Poland don’t take a vaccine. You know, no one in Poland does. At least almost … I really could not tell anyone home if I had taken the vaccine. To be honest, I think my father would go crazy. (Polish woman, 29)

This informant expresses pressure coming from different directions. If she decides to be vaccinated, she might suffer from negative sanctions from her family, but she is not certain. In some countries, however, vaccines and the use of face masks have become political debates and hotbeds. It is conceivable that the informants also saw it in this way, but it is not certain. More certain is that this category did not capture the message many of the informants expressed.

Discussion

The empirical data provide examples of how young labour migrants have different kind of loyalties. Some take the authorities’ calls into account, others do not: while several endorse the message they received, others were sceptical and, perhaps more importantly, they perceive that people from their country of origin have a different opinion than the majority population and the Norwegian authorities. The relationship between practice and various loyalties reveals that transnational ties are a defining condition affecting the processes of integration. Transnational ties imply that that minorities at the same time have different frames of reference, which comprise ties to groups in different countries (see also Bilgili et al., 2023, this volume).

This insight has important theoretical implications, which I address in this last section. First, it is relevant to review some central points. A starting point relates to integration and whether it is correct, as is often assumed, that economic integration leads to social and cultural integration. The simple answer is that we do not find such a connection. On the contrary, while the Pakistani group’s vaccination rate is roughly on par with the majority population, the proportion is lower among labour migrants of Polish origin. This difference is the opposite in terms of economic integration, where the proportion of people in work is close to the same as the majority population among the Polish group, while it is significantly lower among those of Pakistani origin.

Among the Polish informants, economic integration, in terms of working, seems to be a faster process than cultural integration. Consequently, the findings in this chapter are an argument for distinguishing between economic and cultural integration. Another implication, then, is that time should be included as a variable in the understanding of the bumpy road towards integration. As I initially note, integration is understood as participation, primarily in working life and education. Thus, the term is not confined to the economic sphere, but it is a premise that belonging and, thereby, cultural integration result from economic integration. The analyses here shows that if one uses the vaccination rate as a proxy of cultural integration and compares it with economic participation, then the logic does not completely follow. Consequently, the premise that economic and cultural integration follows each other is flawed, it is neither causal nor correlated. Rather, there is a need for an elaborated theoretical understanding of the relationship between participation and the sense of belonging. Vertical and horizontal loyalty provides a basis for understanding different types of practices.

One question is the validity when using the vaccination rate as a proxy of cultural integration. It can be argued that the vaccination rate is a valid indicator of cultural integration, as it touches on institutional trust and what one would like to refer to as linking social capital (Woolcock, 1998). In Norway, which is a society characterised by a high level of institutional trust, support for the authority’s unambiguous approach can be interpreted as a type of acceptance of current norms and values. Consequently, trust in, and support for, the government’s approach is not perfect, but still a relevant measure of integration and support for key cultural values in society.

At the same time, limited data form the basis of the analyses in this chapter. A question is whether it makes sense to compare employees from Pakistan and Poland. Both groups are dominated by, and originally came as, labour immigrants. At the same time, there is no doubt that they differ significantly. The vast majority of the Polish group arrived in Norway since 2004, comprising immigrants who themselves have migrated to Norway. In contrast, members of the Pakistani group have lived in Norway for many years, with complex motivations for migrating and for staying. A large proportion of the Pakistani group is probably better recognised as second generation who are born and educated in Norway, than as labour migrants. This may weaken the comparison somewhat, but at the same time this development can also be seen as steps towards general integration.

That said, all informants can speak Norwegian, they have lived in Norway for at least five years, are employed and, not least, studies show that the length of residence cannot explain differences in the propensity to be vaccinated (Nilsen et al., 2021). For this reason, there is reason to ask if there is anything else that can explain the differences that we can observe empirically. Vertical versus horizontal loyalty is a possible explanation, which is interesting as it offers a possible explanation of why some groups are vaccinated in lower proportions than others but also as a way to better understand the processes of integration in society.

Another topic of theoretical interest concerns the unit in the process of integration. In the introduction to this chapter, I refer to the authorities who claim that integration equals participation in education and working life. In other words, integration is understood in terms of an action by the single individual in relation to educational and economic institutions. The informants of Pakistani origin consistently have several family members in Norway. Moreover, they underline the significance of belonging to a family. Their subjective understanding of integration is related to their sense of belonging in Norway, which by definition includes more people than just themselves. Among them, many had spouses and parents in Norway. Among Polish labour migrants, the situations appear to be different. Some have spouses in Poland and most have parents in Poland. They also have a clear understanding that, one day, they will move back to Poland. Thus, their frame of reference is largely the situation in Poland, while their understanding of the situation in Norway was more external, something they had to adapt to if they were to stay there.

In other words, family was important to all the labour migrants, but for the migrants of Pakistani origin, important family members live in Norway. In contrast, the collective identity among migrants from Poland is mainly in Poland. The relevance is considerable in this context, not least because the Norwegian authorities not only highlight participation when analysing integration but they also see participation as a matter for the individual person. This chapter shows that belonging is crucial: it is important whether an individual sees themself as belong to the Norwegian community or whether they belong to other communities, where there are different norms and perceptions about, for example, vaccinations. This study indicates that labour market participation does little to change this perception. Rather, the connection seems to be the opposite in that social and cultural affiliation is more important than whether someone is employed or not.