Goodman, Sara. "Conceptualizing and Measuring Citizenship and Integration Policy: past lessons and new approaches". Comparative Political Studies, Vol.48, No.14 (2015): 1905-1941.

Goodman, Sara. "Conceptualizing and Measuring Citizenship and Integration Policy: past lessons and new approaches". Comparative Political Studies, Vol.48, No.14 (2015): 1905-1941.

• There are currently [2015] five indices which compare citizenship or integration policies across a number of countries. These are the Migrant Integration Policy Index, the Citizenship Policy Index, the Indicators for Citizenship Rights for Immigrants, the Barriers to Naturalization Index, and the Citizenship Law Indicators. These studies are mainly confined to the EU, with occassional inclusion of OEDC countries or the Balkans (1908-1909).
• Prior surveys of these different indices have noted that those which measure similar aspects of citizenship and integration policy are very similar, whereas those which define citizenship or integration differently have little relation. This emphasizes the importance of establishing distinct categories for different aspects of integration, citizenship, and immigration regimes (1909).
• There has been almost no advancement in the quality or coverage of indices of European immigration, citizenship, and integration in the past decade [since 2005], with new indexes generally failing to incorporate concepts from other scholars and not improving the quality of analysis provided (1913).
• The specific differences between these indices are covered on pages 1912 and 1913.
• The conceptual distinctions between immigration policies -- which govern movement across borders -- and other policy fields are clear, the lines between integration policy and citizenship policy are much less defined. This is primarily an issue because citizenship is a form of integration into the legal system, and often results in forms of economic and social integration (1915).
• The author proposes defining citizenship policy solely on the process for granting legal rights to immigrants which also usually include them in mandatory integration efforts, whereas integration policy is all other policies which promote 'citizen-like' skills without actually changing the immigrant's legal status (1915-1916).
• Establishing which indicators fall into which policy categories is necessary for maintaining conceptual distinctions. It should not be done post facto during the analysis period (1916-1917).
• An important element of actual citizenship, integration, and immigration policy not accounted for in most indices is the difference between formal laws and actual practice. Solving this problem requires the incorporation of distinct expected policy outcomes and estimations of state success in meeting these outcomes into analytical indices (1918-1919).
• The weighting of indicators for composite scores are also a serious issue for generating useful knowledge from indices. While the UK and Germany receive the same 'immigration-friendliness' score on one index, it is for radical different reasons, and it is unclear that the different areas of strength actually translate into equally permissive immigration policies (1919-1920).
• Apparently making clearer distinctions between different types of policies and generally doing a better job in the design of an index results in it giving more clear answers for use in policy-creation; who fucking know better things worked better (1926).
• One index suggestions that integration policies do not generally increase the level of general trust of immigrants nor does it increase the trust among any group of immigrant of their host country. This index still utterly fails to answer why this is the case, nor which policies may have been successful or unsuccessful (1926-1927).
• The author thinks that creating indices for citizenship, integration, and immigration policies is still useful (1932). WHY THE FUCK WOULD THINK THIS?!