Success at Last for a Radical Right-Wing Party in Sweden?

Lund University Master’s Thesis in Global Studies Department of Political Science Spring 2009 Supervisor: Sara Kalm

Success at last for a Radical Right-Wing Party in Sweden?

A case study of voter support for the Sweden Democrats in the city of Malmo

Beth Hollenbeck

Abstract

This paper consists of a case study of voter support for the populist radical right-wing party, the Sweden Democrats, in the municipality of Malmo in the southern region of Scania in Sweden. Seven explanatory factors behind radical right-wing party success in Western Europe were selected to be analyzed as they applied to this case. The chosen economic explanatory factors were; post-industrial economy; and economic crisis and unemployment. The chosen sociocultural explanatory factors were; fragmentation of the culture and multiculturalization; popular xenophobia and racism; widespread political discontentment and disenchantment; opposition to European Union membership; and shifting salience of issues. These are mainly analyzed via voters’ individual perceptions of their local environments and situations, in contrast to a more standard system-level analysis. The study was carried out through some qualitative theoretical analysis but mainly quantitative data analysis of the data collected through the Southern SOM (Society, Opinion Mass Media) survey of inhabitants of the Scanian region to see whether or not these explanatory factors applied to the Malmo case. The findings for this case strongly supported the hypotheses behind these seven explanatory factors that were provided in the literature.

Key Words: Malmo, radical right-wing populist parties, right-wing extremism, Sweden, Sweden Democrats, xenophobia

Number of words: 18,346

Executive Summary

In modern, post-industrial democracies, radical right-wing populist (RRP) parties have played important roles in shaping political policy and setting the tone in the political debate. The beginning of the 21st century has found radical right-wing parties stronger than ever in Western European nations. Parties to the extreme right of the political spectrum can be found in most if not all of the Western European democracies. In Sweden, a radical right-wing party has yet to participate at the national level since the disintegration of New Democracy (Ny Demokrati) following the 1994 elections. However, a party that has been relatively successful at the local and regional levels in Sweden and that seems to be moving up in the ranks towards possible success in the next national election is the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna). I am interested in the reasons behind this party’s local success in the city of Malmo, Sweden.

The research question is: How can the voter support for the Sweden Democrats in the city of Malmo in the 2006 election be explained?

This study provides a theoretical framework combined with empirical analysis in order to answer this question. I utilize individual voter-centered statistical analysis, as opposed to a broader, system-level analysis, of social, cultural and political attitudes combined with text analysis from the field of literature on RRP parties in Western Europe. This study is limited to the city of Malmo, Sweden. Malmo is Sweden’s third largest city, with a population of 270,000 who speak some 100 languages and come from 164 nations (Malmö Stad 2008). The reason why Malmo was chosen as an area of study over other cities in southern Sweden where the Sweden Democrats have been successful as well is because of its size, importance and particularly richly multicultural population.

My chosen seven factors, the hypotheses associated with them and my conclusions are the following: Economic Factors 1. A post-industrial economy: The hypothesis is that a post-industrial economy makes the situation more disposed to greater voter support of RRP parties. According to the characteristics of how a post-industrial economy is represented in the literature, Malmo is classified as such, and the hypothesis would apply to the case of SD voters in Malmo. Additionally, the demographics of Malmo SD voters as provided by the survey data correspond with the typical RRP party voter.

2. Economic crisis and unemployment: Since Malmo has comparatively high unemployment figures in Sweden, the hypothesis that an increase in unemployment is positively correlated with an increase in support for RRP parties is supported. Additionally, the data results are in line with the hypotheses behind the relationship between economic crisis and unemployment and support for RRP parties – when economic crisis exists, there is an increase in support for RRP parties; when unemployment increases, there is an increase in support for RRP parties. Malmo Sweden Democrat voters have comparatively the most negative perception of their municipal economy. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a considerable positive relationship in this case between support for RRP parties and at least perceptions of economic problems.

Sociocultural Factors 1. Fragmentation of the culture and multiculturalization: The hypothesis attached to this explanatory factor is that increases in the fragmentation of the culture and in multiculturalization lead to an increase in support for RRP parties. We observed that where the immigrants live and where the Swedish families live represents a geographical fragmentation of the local culture. The survey data findings neither prove nor disprove an increase in multiculturalization in Malmo, but there clearly exists the perception of multiculturalization as existent, and by Malmo SD voters, as

3 particularly negative. Accordingly, there is a strong correlation between the perception of increased multiculturalization and support for RRP parties in this case.

2. Popular xenophobia and racism: According to this hypothesis, a greater presence of xenophobia and racism is positively correlated with greater support for RRP parties. From the data, there was an observed very negative attitude towards immigrants among Malmo SD voters. As a result, we are able to quantify a strong correlation between xenophobia and support for RRP parties. I am however unable to quantify racist attitudes, although I recognize there being the possibility for a positive relationship between racism and support for RRP parties as well.

3. Widespread political discontentment and disenchantment: The hypothesis associated with this explanatory factor is that those that vote for RRP parties tend to be especially discontent and disenchanted with the current government and mainstream political parties. We can observe a strong positive correlation between political discontentment and disenchantment and support for RRP parties in the Malmo case.

4. Opposition to European Union membership: According to the hypothesis found in the literature, an anti-EU stance is positively correlated with support for RRP parties. We in fact do see a positive correlation at least between individual dissatisfaction with the EU and RRP party support, although the correlation is not particularly strong. After observing a slightly higher comparative opposition to EU membership among Malmo SD voters, a deeper look into questions about how democracy works in the EU, possibility to influence political decisions in the EU and trust for EU-parliamentarians reveals a distinct suggestion of dissatisfaction with the EU among Malmo SD voters, giving more strength to the hypothesis in the Malmo case as it applies to individual voters.

5. Shifting Salience of issues: The hypothesis behind this explanatory factor is that as certain issues become more salient (particularly the immigration issue), there is an increase in support for RRP parties. We find that immigration as an issue is strongly positively correlated with support for RRP parties in the Malmo case, although neoliberal economic issues do not seem to be as decisive of factors for RRP party support in this case as would be expected.

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... 1 Executive Summary ...... 2 Table of Contents ...... 5 Figures ...... 7 Tables ...... 8 1. Introduction ...... 9 1.1 Research Question ...... 10 1.2 Purpose ...... 10 1.3 Delimitation of the Study ...... 10 1.4 Outline of the Paper ...... 11 2. Problem Background ...... 12 2.1 Western European RRP Parties ...... 12 2.2 The State of Politics in Sweden ...... 12 2.3 Why Malmo? ...... 14 3. Theory ...... 16 3.1 Defining Terms ...... 16 3.1.1 Radical Right-Wing Populist Party ...... 16 3.1.2 Populism ...... 16 3.2 Explaining the Emergence and Success of Radical Right-Wing Populist Parties in Western Europe ...... 16 3.3 The Chosen Factors for Analysis ...... 18 Opposition to European Union membership ...... 20 3.4 Limitations ...... 21 4. Methodology ...... 23 4.1 Introduction ...... 23 4.2 Research Design – Case study ...... 23 4.2.1 Local vs. National study ...... 23 4.3 Use of mainly quantitative analysis ...... 24 4.4 Operationalization of the chosen factors for the case ...... 24 4.5 Applicable methods for the case ...... 26 4.6 Quality in qualitative and quantitative research ...... 26 4.6.1 Reliability ...... 26 4.6.2 Validity ...... 27

4.7 The Survey: Southern SOM ...... 27 4.8 Limitations, strengths and weaknesses of my methodological choices ...... 28 5. The Empirical Study ...... 30 5.1 Description of Case ...... 30 5.2 Quantitative data analysis ...... 31 5.3 Bivariate analysis ...... 32 5.4 Multivariate analysis ...... 33 5.4.1 Economic Factors – A post-industrial economy ...... 33 5.4.2 Economic Factors – Economic crisis and unemployment ...... 34 5.4.3 Sociocultural Factors – Fragmentation of the culture and multiculturalization ...... 41 5.4.4 Sociocultural Factors – Popular xenophobia and racism ...... 45 5.4.5 Sociocultural Factors – Widespread political discontentment and disenchantment ..... 47 5.4.6 Sociocultural Factors – Opposition to European Union membership ...... 51 5.4.7 Sociocultural Factors – Shifting salience of issues ...... 55 6. Conclusion ...... 58 7. References ...... 61

Figures

Figure 1, Source: Strategic development, Malmo city ...... 14 Figure 2, Source: Strategic development, Malmo city ...... 15 Figure 3, Source: Strategic development, Malmo city ...... 41

Tables

Table 1 ...... 32 Table 2 ...... 35 Table 3 ...... 36 Table 4 ...... 37 Table 5 ...... 38 Table 6 ...... 39 Table 7 ...... 40 Table 8 ...... 42 Table 9 ...... 43 Table 10 ...... 44 Table 11 ...... 45 Table 14 ...... 47 Table 15 ...... 48 Table 16 ...... 48 Table 17 ...... 49 Table 18 ...... 50 Table 19 ...... 52 Table 20 ...... 53 Table 21 ...... 53 Table 22 ...... 54 Table 23 ...... 56 Table 24 ...... 57

1. Introduction

The policies of governments can affect the attitudes of their populations, leading to consequences in politics, the labor market and increased social tensions. Organized, anti-immigrant forces now exert at least a modest degree of influence over the public policy agenda (Messina and Lahav 2006, 374). The beginning of the 21st century has found radical right-wing parties stronger than ever in Western European nations. Parties to the extreme right of the political spectrum can be found in most if not all of the Western European democracies: in France, there is the Front National (FN); in Austria, the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ); in Denmark, the Progress Party; Italy has the Italian Social Movement-National Right (MSI); in Germany, there is the National Democratic Party of Germany (NDP) along with six other radical-right wing parties; in Greece, there is the Patriotic Alliance; in Norway, there is Demokratene; in Portugal we find the National Renewal Party; the list continues. In Sweden, a radical right-wing party has yet to participate at the national level since the disintegration of New Democracy (Ny Demokrati) following the 1994 elections. However, a party that has been relatively successful at the local and regional levels in Sweden and that seems to be moving up in the ranks towards possible success in the next national election is the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna). I am interested in the individual, voter- centered perceptions of Malmo Sweden Democrat voters’ own situations that provide the reasons behind voter support of the party in the city of Malmo, Sweden.

This paper attempts to answer the following research question by looking more closely at some of the hypotheses provided by the field of research explaining the success of such radical right-wing populist parties (hereon referred to as RRP parties). The analytical framework is based in the theories provided in the literature. Although these theories focus mainly on the systemic explanations that make the situation riper for the emergence of and increase in support for RRP parties in Western Europe, I look more closely at the individual level, that is, the voters’ individual perceptions of their environments and situations. The methodological framework tests these hypotheses as applied to a local case study of Malmo, Sweden through some system-level qualitative analysis and mainly individual-level quantitative data analysis.

1.1 Research Question

How can the voter support for the Sweden Democrats in the city of Malmo in the 2006 election be explained?

This study provides a theoretical framework combined with empirical analysis in order to answer this question. I utilize mainly statistical analysis of social, cultural and political attitudes combined with text analysis from the field of literature on RRP parties in Western Europe.

1.2 Purpose

The aim of this study is to test the validity of the hypotheses provided in the literature, and also to understand and explain the support for the radical right-wing populist party, the Sweden Democrats, focusing on the city of Malmo, Sweden through a limited investigation of some of the explanatory factors behind this support. The knowledge of the explanatory factors behind what makes this type of political party successful in Swedish cities may provide a better understanding and catalyst for further research of how such a party could be represented in local municipal governments and perhaps the Swedish parliament.

1.3 Delimitation of the Study

This study is limited to the city of Malmo, Sweden. Malmo is Sweden’s third largest city, with a population of 270,000 who speak some 100 languages and come from 164 nations (Malmö Stad 2008). The reason why Malmo was chosen as an area of study over other cities in southern Sweden where the Sweden Democrats have been successful as well is because of its size and particularly richly multicultural population. The literature supports the assumption that those voting for RRP parties generally consider immigration one of the major issues behind their voting decisions (Kessler and Freeman 2004); thus, a city with a large immigrant population would logically make a RRP party more successful. Finally, I find a shortage in the literature regarding local (as opposed to national) studies of RRP party success. A more limited, local study makes it possible for further comparative studies. My aim is to contribute to the field of research by providing a deeper understanding of local explanations behind why such parties rise to local and perhaps subsequently to national power.

1.4 Outline of the Paper

The theory section introduces explanatory factors behind the success of RRP parties in Western Europe. The seven explanatory factors that I cover are given by authors that I believe give the most all-inclusive and cohesive coverage of the field of study. However, most of these explanations are from the broader system level of analysis, and I aim to test these from the individual voter-centered perspective. The methodology section establishes this study as a local case study at the individual level. The case study is analyzed through some qualitative analysis and a great deal of quantitative analysis of the data from a large survey of the southern Swedish region of Scania. I then go on to show how I have operationalized the analysis of each of my chosen explanatory factors for my case study of the local support for the Sweden Democrats in the municipality of Malmo, Sweden. The rest of the paper consists of my empirical analysis of my chosen factors, with a large amount of data analysis. I conclude with a review of my findings through the qualitative theoretical analysis and quantitative data analysis, and state the need for and productivity of further research into this case, with possible further comparative analyses as fruitful additions to the field of study.

2. Problem Background

2.1 Western European RRP Parties

In modern, post-industrial democracies, radical right-wing populist parties have played important roles in shaping political policy and setting the tone in the political debate. The extent to which far-right parties exercise significant political influence in Western European nations differ, but it is clear that this contemporary movement has had substantial impacts. Welfare states are increasingly strained by growing global migration, intensified global economic competition and threats to national security. As the governments of Western Europe have attempted to cope with these issues, niches have been opened for the radical right. During the past several years, RRP parties have benefited from times of turbulence and change to make a remarkable comeback in Western Europe. For example, in Austria, the Freedom Party is an established political party, even though it can be classified as part of the extreme right. By appearing populist and anti- statist, this party is able to have strong appeal and support (Kitschelt 1995, 25). Other parties, such as the National Front in France, endorse paternalism in the family and state authority plus support of neoliberal capitalism in order to garner voter support. As a result, the French National Front has been seen as a prototype of the contemporary RRP parties. In Scandinavia, the radical right may be perceived as milder than their continental counterparts, but they represent extreme positions within their own party systems.

2.2 The State of Politics in Sweden

Political parties and the people’s impressions of them have changed in recent years in Sweden. There is less party identification, fewer members of parties, a decline in class voting, a splitting of votes in favor of different parties in the three different levels of government - national, regional, and local and people are deciding much later in elections whom to vote for, making the electoral system much less predictable than it has historically been (Aylott 2002). Additionally, issues relating to immigration and integration were historically characterized by a high level of cross-party consensus up until the 1990s. This can be explained by relatively low levels of immigration, high levels of labor market participation and the strength of the Social Democrats (Green-Pedersen and Odmalm 2008, 371). The salience of immigration issues significantly increased in the early 1990s after the war in the Balkans led to a dramatic increase in asylum

12 applications during the time that the Swedish economy was attempting to recover from recession. Questions of whether or not to restrict asylum and refugee migration became a part of the political debate. The radical right-wing populist party, New Democracy, received 6.7 percent of votes in the 1991 parliamentary election, establishing them as a party of national significance (Rydgren 2002, 33). Nonetheless, their success was short-lived; they received 1.2 percent of votes in the 1994 election and then all but vanished since then (Ibid, p. 34).

The leading radical-right wing populist party in Sweden today is the Sweden Democrats. The 2006 elections also declared victory for smaller political parties on the local and regional levels. The Sweden Democrats gained seats in regional councils in the 2006 election (Green-Pedersen and Odmalm 2008, 375). Founded in 1988 as a continuation of the Sweden Party (Sverigepartiet), the Sweden Democrats have striven to present themselves as a respectable political party and as champions of “true democracy” (Widfeldt 2000, 496). However, they had not been so successful because of an obscure prehistory and with several party members being repeatedly associated with Nazi or racist organizations in the press (Ibid). The Sweden Democrats re-launched their image by discarding connections with neo-Nazi and other far-right groups in order to increase their electoral support. They eventually carved out a clear party profile and had the previously named relative local success in the 2006 election. Although they are not yet represented in the national parliament, the party has succeeded locally in the region of Scania and particularly in the city of Malmo. Now tied with the Liberal Party (Folkpartiet) as the third largest party represented in Malmo, they received five seats in the municipal council in the 2006 election (Malmo.se). According to the Sweden Democrats’ website, “Our party, [Sweden Democrats] (SD), is the leading nationalist party in Sweden, and has since its foundation in 1988 received an ever-increasing voter support. The party received approximately 3 % of the votes to the national assembly, 16 regional seats and 280 municipal seats in the general elections of September 2006. This was a result sufficient to make [Sweden Democrats] recognized as by far the leading contestant for seats in the national assembly in next general elections in 2010.” (Sverigedemokraterna.se)

How can the local support for the Sweden Democrats in the 2006 election be explained? Single case studies help to answer questions about why certain radical right-wing populist parties have

13 succeeded. Furthermore, the literature provides numerous explanations to account for radical right-wing populist party emergence and success.

2.3 Why Malmo?

A city of major industrial, economic and social importance in Sweden, it is also an area of great diversity. A large proportion (27% or 28%, based on different estimates) of the population has been born abroad, with the five largest groups coming from Denmark, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Poland and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Figure 1 illustrates the statistics as of January 2008:

Immigrants in Malmo 1 January 2008 Country (The five largest groups) Born Born in abroad Sweden* Denmark 8 857 1 033 Yugoslavia 8 658 4 366 Iraq 7 975 2 270 Poland 6 314 1 832 Bosnia-Herzegovina 5 725 1 279 TOTAL 79 389 25 244 Proportion of population 28% 9%

*both parents born abroad Figure 1, Source: Strategic development, Malmo city

Perhaps as a result of Malmo’s recent economic turmoil, comparatively high unemployment and a high proportion of immigration, more and more voters are supporting the RRP party, the Sweden Democrats, as illustrated by the following graph:

Figure 2, Source: Strategic development, Malmo city Political Parties M: Moderaterna (the Moderates) Fp: Folkpartiet Liberalerna (the Liberal People’s Party) Kd: Kristdemokraterna (the Christian Democrats) S: Socialdemokraterna (the Social Democrats) V: Vänsterpartiet (the Left Party) Mp: Miljöpartiet (the Green Party) Skåp: Skånepartiet (the Scania Party) SPI: Sveriges Pensionärers Intresseparti (Swedish Senior Citizen Interest Party) SD: Sverigedemokraterna (the Sweden Democrats)

Thus, Malmo’s importance as an economic and culturally diverse center in Sweden combined with this ideological shift toward the extreme right make it particularly interesting to look at more closely and relevant as a case for local increasing support for a RRP party.

3. Theory

3.1 Defining Terms

3.1.1 Radical Right-Wing Populist Party

A major presence in the literature, H.G. Betz attempts to categorize the different parties to the right of the political spectrum. He distinguishes between neo-fascist parties (which are anti- system, anti-democratic and anti-capitalist) and orthodox conservatism, with the radical right- wing populist parties in the middle (Betz 1994). RRP parties combine neoliberal economic positions, opposition to immigration, social conservatism, a high deference for law and order with a basic acceptance of democratic values, which classifies them as a clear shift from mainstream conservatism on the political spectrum.

3.1.2 Populism

Populism is characterized by anti-establishment movements that appeal to the common people and oppose the “political elite” (that is to say, the established political parties, the government and the anti-incumbent opposition) (Rydgren 2007, 245). RRP parties use the populist anti- establishment strategy in order to present themselves as the real supporters of democracy that take the interests of the common people into account. However, with RRP parties, the common people exclude not only the elites, but immigrants and ethnic minorities. Although populism is characteristic of these parties, it is certainly not a new feature of political parties in general. Many political parties have historically used the anti-establishment strategy in order to create distance between themselves and the “corrupt” elite. What separates RRP party populism is that part of the strategy is to criticize the established parties for ignoring the pressing political issues with the “real conflict between national identity and multiculturalism” (Ibid).

3.2 Explaining the Emergence and Success of Radical Right-Wing Populist Parties in Western Europe

Major theoretical influences in the literature are Kitschelt (1995) and Betz (1994). These authors conclude through mainly systemic-level analyses that the emergence and success of RRP parties can be explained by the transition from an industrial economy to a post-industrial economy

(Kitschelt 1995, Betz 1994). This transition has led to changes in political preferences for groups of voters and/or increases in frustration and discontentment in these transformation processes. Kitschelt argues that although xenophobia and racism are partial causes of the emergence of RRP parties, they are not sufficient causes (1995). Support for RRP parties comes mostly from those that have less in contemporary Western European societies (that is to say, those with little cultural capital, unskilled and semi-skilled workers, and so on). The protest dimension that leads to the emergence of RRP parties only becomes salient depending on the degree of convergence between the established political parties within the political space. Issues such as political party convergence fall under the category of supply-side factors, or those that focus on political opportunity structures and party organizational factors, of RRP party emergence; a great deal of explanations within the literature, however, focus on demand-centered explanations, or those that focus on changing preferences, beliefs and attitudes among voters.

The explanatory factors aiding the emergence and success of RRP parties according to the literature are the following:

Economic Factors 1. A post-industrial economy 2. Economic crisis and unemployment Sociocultural Factors 1. Dissolution of established identities 2. Fragmentation of the culture, multiculturalization 3. Widespread political discontentment and disenchantment 4. Popular xenophobia and racism 5. Reaction against the emergence of New Left and/or Green parties and movements 6. The level of convergence between established parties in political space 7. The shifting salience of issues (such as the immigration issue) 8. Electoral systems and thresholds (for example, a proportional voting system) 9. Experience of a referendum that cuts across the old party cleavages 10. The presence of elite allies 11. Opposition to EU membership 12. The mass media 17

Rydgren argues that “politicized xenophobia and ethno-nationalism are the most important of the ‘positive’ demand-related factors,” while “political discontentment is the most important ‘negative’ demand-related factors” (Rydgren 2002, 50). A combination of these demand-centered explanations may make the situation mature for the success of a RRP party; still, the RRP party needs to meet certain supply-side explanations. For example, a RRP party should present the proper populist (that is to say, democratic, but still in opposition to the political status quo) image, and of course a certain amount of resources, strategic skill and ideological sophistication.

3.3 The Chosen Factors for Analysis

In addition to the list provided above, explanatory factors behind the success of RRP parties abound. Thus, for the purpose of constraint and focus, in addition to limitations presented by my methodological choices, I will limit this study to seven explanatory factors. The following is my list of chosen factors, with a subsequent short explanation of each. Naturally, each factor will be looked at more closely in the empirical section of this paper.

Economic Factors 1. A post-industrial economy 2. Economic crisis and unemployment

Sociocultural Factors 1. Fragmentation of the culture and multiculturalization 2. Popular xenophobia and racism 3. Widespread political discontentment and disenchantment 4. Opposition to European Union membership 5. Shifting salience of issues

A post-industrial economy A post-industrial economy is characterized by a sizeable middle-class, centralized, large-scale industry and increased status and power of organized labor. These developments can be seen in the postwar period in most Western-style democracies. According to Lipset (1981, 489), both

18 fascism and right-wing radicalism are represented by extreme responses from those displaced or threatened by the post-industrial economic developments. These oppressed individuals, such as farmers or small entrepreneurs, are subject to fascist and radical right-wing movements as a revolt against modernity. This can be seen in the French case when the government attempted to modernize the country in the postwar period, exposing opportunities for RRP parties to exploit the social pressures on the middle class and creating success for the Poujadists in the 1950s (Betz 1994, 24).

Economic Crisis and Unemployment The radical right may be successful in exploiting the middle class’s immediate fears of re-joining the ranks of the lower classes from economic crisis. It may also manage to utilize the familiar fear of the threat of a lower-class, socialist revolution (Betz 1994, 24). Situations of economic crisis and unemployment are largely characterized by frustration and uncertainty for the future. These frustrations can be manifested in increased xenophobia and the call for greater law and order.

Fragmentation of the culture and multiculturalization Logically, economic transformations are closely linked to social and cultural developments. These features are characterized by increased individualization, leading to identity crises and disintegration and divisiveness within national and local cultures. The breakdown of traditional class distinctions and identities is pronounced within the educational and neoliberal market spheres, encouraging individual effort and merit (Ibid, pp. 28-29). Consequently, traditional support bases for collective identities, such as subcultures and institutions, are broken down. The combination of the emergence of a mass culture from the post-industrial economy and the promotion of individualization of lifestyles may lead to a longing for the past and traditions by members of the society, especially those marginalized by such changes. Fragmentation of the culture can be understood as a disintegration of social relationships, manifested socially in breakups of lifestyles and socio-economic inequality, and physically in geographical divisions.

Popular xenophobia and racism Xenophobia can be defined as fear of the other; the other being other foreign customs, practices and behaviors. In contrast, racism can be defined strictly as a belief that there is an inherent struggle between races as opposed to nations or classes (Ibid, pp. 172-173). A common thread connecting the RRP parties of Western Europe is their marked hostility towards immigrants and refugees. The immigration issue appeals to a larger proportion of the population than those voters merely on the extreme right of the political spectrum. The increased multiculturalization in Western Europe presents a major challenge to their respective democracies. This makes immigrants and refugees easy targets for blame for economic hardships, issues of law and order, and the breakdown of the national cultural identity and so on.

Widespread political discontentment and disenchantment Nationalist or xenophobic sentiments are not the only issues on the RRP party agenda. A decline in the people’s confidence in their political parties and in the democratic system itself sets up opportunities for these parties (Ignazi 2003, 150). The utilization of a populist, anti-system attitude on the part of RRP parties highlights citizens’ dissatisfaction with their elected representatives. Furthermore, according to Ignazi (Ibid, pp. 150-151), those that are politically alienated are concentrated on the right and in the extreme right parties. This has been shown empirically in a number of the Western European countries, including Sweden.

Opposition to European Union membership Most modern RRP parties are committed opponents of the European Union (EU). Opposition of the EU may be based upon or shared with xenophobic attitudes. As the left typically dominates the anti-EU position, those not sharing the core values of those parties may look elsewhere for their party preference. Emerging RRP parties are able to exploit anti-EU sentiments to encourage more voter support. EU member states have liberalized their immigrant policies so as to integrate immigrants into the body politic. Nationality laws and refugee and asylum policies are becoming all the more common among member states (Cornelius and Rosenblum 2005, 111). It is also logical to assume the European integration process has challenged national identity. Citizens are challenged to create a new European identity, with some struggling to maintain or emphasize their national identity. With the portrayal of themselves as protecting national identity and sovereignty, RRP parties are both able to attract those who fear losing their national identity and 20 sovereignty while additionally distinguishing themselves from the mainstream parties. As an example, the Danish People’s Party uses politics of identity in its anti-immigrant language and is a firm opponent of the EU.

The shifting salience of issues (such as the immigration issue) Certainly the immigration issue is a key component of the rhetoric of the extreme right. However, these parties are not single issue-dependent. Economic, political, structural and social issues have also led to discontentment with the system and the established parties. Other issues can act as catalysts for the emergence and support of RRP parties. For example, the Flemish Bloc in Belgium and the Northern League in Italy have utilized the salience of regional independence for support, while taxation in the Norwegian and Danish Progress Parties have sometimes been the exploited issue of choice.

Those marginalized individuals seeking anti-system parties but that do not find themselves to the left of the political spectrum might consider voting for a party that is closer to sharing their basic values. The emergence of new, salient issues that may be dominated by the New Left or the Green parties (such as anti-EU sentiments) may be picked up by the RRP parties and used to recruit those that do not share the core values of such parties to the left of the political spectrum. Differing catalysts of discontentment encourage voters to break away from support of other smaller or mainstream parties and support those parties that appeal to their issue stances.

Accordingly, the questions emerge: Are these explanations still valid when applied to the case of the Sweden Democrats in Malmo, Sweden? If so, which apply?

3.4 Limitations

As a researcher, I should be alert to the drawbacks of using these explanatory factors in a deterministic way. According to Rydgren, several of the explanatory factors are equally valid in negative cases (as in Sweden) and some have been shown to be poor predicting instruments (such as unemployment rates) (2002, 49). Discovering the combination of factors that make the situation ripe for RRP party emerging support seems more viable than looking for a single

21 sufficient explanatory factor. Moreover, these explanations have not been shown to be sufficient determinants of RRP emergence and success; rather, they have been shown to be necessary.

4. Methodology

4.1 Introduction

Given the nature of this study, I have come to the conclusion that my research question is best answered through deductive research. Quantitative analysis gives the numerical data that is the foundation for looking deeper into the meaning behind these numbers. Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative methods in my opinion has its merits in any study, but if the research study is after the reasons behind numerical data, qualitative analysis is more fruitful in trying to find the explanations behind why people are motivated to vote for a radical right-wing populist part. I found this was very relevant to my research question. The raw, numerical data that confirms the Sweden Democrats’ popularity is on the rise is Malmo is empty until it is filled with meaning.

4.2 Research Design – Case study

The strength of the case study method is that it allows a combination of various different data collection techniques, such as archival records, interviews, focus groups, observations and so forth (Yin 2003, Case study research. Design and methods). The use of multiple sources of evidence can further increase the quality of the study (Bryman 2002). However, one has to be aware of which techniques can be valuable in terms of answering the research question and not simply use several techniques haphazardly.

According to Seale et al. (2004), the case study method produces context-dependant knowledge, which I believe suits the nature of my research question. I believe that to neglect the importance of context would negatively affect the study’s contribution to the field, since a significant analytical dimension would be disregarded.

4.2.1 Local vs. National study

Due to the scope of the research question, the research will focus on the Sweden Democrat party in the city of Malmo, Sweden. However, the quantitative data that will be used will include a sample from the entire population in the Scanian region in southern Sweden.

According to Yin, the case study is the method of choice when the phenomenon is not easily evident from its context (2003, Applications of Case Study Research, 4). Certainly, Malmo’s immigration numbers are noteworthy, but they are not remarkable for the country. According to the Stockholm Data Guide, 21% of the population is foreign-born (166,746 of 795,463 persons as of 1 January 2008) (www.stockholm.se/usk). However, the Sweden Democrats have not been 23 successful there. I am conducting an explanatory single-case study locally so as to focus the study on the specific data that explains how the event of this party’s success can be explained in Malmo. A larger, national study would not permit an in-depth examination of the factors; themselves; rather, it would focus mainly on the outcome of the causal relationships. Thus, in this way, I am able to examine the explanatory factors more closely and limit the complexity of the study.

Of course, by limiting the study to a local case, I may be restricting myself to a much more narrow view of the reasons behind support for RRP parties in general. On the contrary, it will be productive to have theoretical boundaries since the phenomenon is not a national one, and I do not want to take away from the essential purpose of analyzing these factors more deeply. Additionally, there is always room to address other applicable cases within the field in further studies. The results of this study will hopefully provide useful in comparative studies and wider, national studies.

4.3 Use of mainly quantitative analysis

My research approach within mainly quantitative but with some qualitative methodology allows me to go beyond the generalized understanding of the research problem that a single study area would produce. The case study design is filled with both qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques. Flick (2006) argues that anything that is qualitatively found can be coded quantitatively or in other words given a numerical value that enables a deeper insight into the data and a strong base in exploring the research question in a less general manner. Numbers can be explained by data that is gathered through verbal, written text, live context, archival data and so forth (Flick 2006; www.socialresearchmethod.net).

4.4 Operationalization of the chosen factors for the case

My field of study encompasses an investigation of each of the below factors through some system-level qualitative analysis but mainly individual-level quantitative analysis. I have chosen these factors based on my interpretation of their capacities to be quantified, as well as their general importance to the rise of RRP parties as posited in the field of literature, and their applicability to my chosen case study. Since the majority of my data comes from a survey, I lack the system-wide data to analyze most of these factors at the systemic level. As follows, my

24 analysis and the conclusions drawn from it are mostly based on the individual level. The following lists the chosen explanatory factors and how they are operationalized:

Economic Factors 1. A post-industrial economy is analyzed at the systemic-level through theory, that is, how we define a post-industrial economy and how Malmo fits that frame. 2. Economic crisis and unemployment are analyzed at the systemic-level through statistics for unemployment plus individual-level statistical analysis of responses to applicable survey questions. I also use statistics for the city of Malmo and other cities in the Scanian region and Sweden.

Sociocultural Factors 1. Fragmentation of the culture and multiculturalization are analyzed through individual-level statistical analysis of responses to applicable survey questions in order to examine Malmo Sweden Democrat voters’ perceptions of the situation in comparison with voters for the other parties. I also touch upon the systemic level through the use of a map of the city districts of Malmo that shows where immigrants live versus where Swedish families live. 2. Popular xenophobia and racism are analyzed through individual-level statistical analysis of responses to applicable survey questions in order to examine Malmo Sweden Democrat voters’ perceptions of the situation in comparison with voters for the other parties. 3. Widespread political discontentment and disenchantment are analyzed through individual-level statistical analysis of responses to applicable survey questions in order to examine Malmo Sweden Democrat voters’ perceptions of the situation in comparison with voters for the other parties. 4. Opposition to European Union membership is analyzed through individual-level statistical analysis of responses to applicable survey questions in order to examine Malmo Sweden Democrat voters’ perceptions of the situation in comparison with voters for the other parties. 5. The shifting salience of issues is analyzed through individual-level statistical analysis of responses to applicable survey questions, particularly the immigration issue, in order to examine Malmo Sweden Democrat voters’ perceptions of the situation in comparison with voters for the other parties.

4.5 Applicable methods for the case

In this study, I conduct both theory-testing and statistical data analysis of survey results. As asserted by Yin (2003, Case study research. Design and methods), I as the researcher have to consider the types of questions I want answered in order to differentiate among different research techniques. The case I am studying and the explanations behind the Sweden Democrat party’s support in Malmo cannot be directly observed; therefore, I utilize theory-testing and statistical data analysis in order to infer the different reasons behind this phenomenon. According to Yin (Ibid), it is then the researcher’s task to check and re- check rival explanations so as to maintain an “internal validity” of the causal explanations derived from the data. “External validity” involves finding whether the results of a case study are generalizable. Generalization is certainly not automatic, and theories must be tested beyond the immediate case study in order to find replications in findings. My research study’s goal, however, is not to find generalization; I am only interested in the explanations behind my specific case. Thus, the method of statistical data analysis is very useful regarding the logic of internal validity, and the notion of external validity becomes less significant. The concepts of reliability of validity will be discussed further in the following chapter.

4.6 Quality in qualitative and quantitative research

The concepts of validity and reliability will be utilized in this study. However, I am aware of the critique towards using these concepts within research, and they will therefore be defined in slightly different manners in order to better suit the research design.

4.6.1 Reliability

“Reliability refers to the degree of consistency with which instances are assigned to the same category by different observers or by the same observer on different occasions” (Hammersley in Silverman 1995, 145).

There are different kinds of reliability discussed in the literature (Bryman 2002; Flick 2006; Silverman, 1995). The aspects that can be considered relevant for this study will be treated in the following section. In texts, such as archival data and so forth, issues of reliability arise through the categories of analysis that are chosen (Silverman 1995). The categories used in this study are relatively standardized, enabling other researchers to categorize in the same way. I settled upon a set of categories as a point of departure for analysis in able to ensure that these were interpreted in the same manner.

Internal reliability refers to how the data is interpreted and analyzed (Bryman, 2002). Flick (2006) states that high quality when documenting data is of great importance to achieve reliability. One way of achieving internal reliability in the documentation of data is to standardize the data input during, for example, the examination of survey results.

4.6.2 Validity

“By validity, I mean truth: interpreted as the extent to which an account accurately represents the social phenomena to which it refers” (Hammersely in Silverman, 1995, 149).

According to Flick (2006), validity in research can be understood as a question of whether the researcher sees what he or she thinks he or she sees. However, I would like to extend this definition by applying internal and external validity (Bryman 2002). Internal validity involves a satisfactory correspondence between the empirical results and the theoretical ideas that are developed. This can be ensured through the varied data collection sources that are used in this study. External validity involves to what extent the results can be generalized to other social environments and situations (Bryman 2002). This criterion is difficult to fulfill in research because of the strong connection to context. However, I believe my case study will provide a basis for further investigation. Still, it is important to remember that the results from the qualitative part of the investigation can only be generalized in a restrictive manner.

To ensure validity in research, two forms of validation are suggested by Silverman (1995): triangulation and respondent validation. Triangulation is not used in this case study, but could be useful in further studies of RRP party support in Malmö and other areas in Sweden. Respondent validation implies that the researcher takes the findings back to the subjects being studied and verifies them. Bringing back a tentative report to the participants can, in my opinion, indeed be valuable, but more to clarify aspects that are not understood and to find more paths for further analysis than as a source of validation. There are a number of implications with this type of validation. If a result is very critical or negative, individuals may react negatively and deny the results even though they may be correct in order to “save face.” Individuals may further have difficulties following an analysis written for an academic audience. To further increase the validity in this study, I have sought feedback on my findings from other colleagues.

4.7 The Survey: Southern SOM

Southern SOM (Society Opinion Mass Media) was a survey carried out in 2006 by the SOM Institute at Gothenburg University in the whole region of Scania, Sweden. The SOM Institute is a

27 research and conference center studying the opinions, habits and values of Swedish inhabitants, and it is jointly managed by the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication (JMG), the Department of Political Science, and the Research Center for the Public Sector (CEFOS) (http://www.som.gu.se/english.htm). The geographic coverage for the survey included the municipalities of Båstad, Landskrona, Helsingborg, Höganäs, Ängelholm, Svalöv, Staffanstorp, Burlöv, Vellinge, Kävlinge, Lomma, Svedala, Höör, Malmo, Lund, Eslöv, Trelleborg, Östra Göinge, Hörby, Bromölla, Osby, Perstorp, Kristianstad, Hässleholm, Skurup, Sjöbo, Tomelilla, Ystad and Simrishamn. The unit of analysis was individual. The universe was inhabitants of the Scanian region aged 15-85 years. The survey data consists of a cross-sectional regular study, collected between 3 October 2006 and 20 February 2007. The sampling procedure was random, and data was collected through postal surveys. The dataset was released 2 April 2008, with 605 variables and 3142 cases (http://www.ssd.gu.se/en/catalogue/study/495).

The questionnaire, which was written in the Swedish language, consisted of nine coherent parts, including news and daily papers; politics and society; society and service; media and society; holdings of technology and internet; traffic; activities and leisure habits; working life; and background (http://www.ssd.gu.se/en/catalogue/study/495). My analysis particularly concerned the sections politics and society, society and service and background. My cross-tabulations were of question numbers 13, 19-22, 26, 29, 30, 36, 65, 66, 92, 98 and 99. These questions translated into English by myself can be found in Appendix 1. Those wishing to see the original questions in Swedish should refer to the original survey found in Medborgarna, regionen och flernivå- demokratin edited by Lennart Nilsson and Rudolf Antoni.

4.8 Limitations, strengths and weaknesses of my methodological choices

This research project has worthwhile goals, but it is important that the pursuit of these goals is moderated by the utilization of only valid, representative data with proper references to data sources (Kimmel 1988). As a researcher, I understand the ethical guidelines and limitations present, and I endeavor to proceed ethically while also bearing in mind that the validity and reliability of my results are crucial. Moreover, quantitative data analysis provides a limited account of the effects of different processes, and there is the basic problem of availability and reliability of data. Qualitative individual-level analysis could help to overcome these problems

28 and help to gain greater insight into voter experiences and understandings. However, I utilize a substantial amount of quantitative analysis in order to give a larger picture of the voters’ perceptions of conditions and processes. I believe that this helps to gain a more general understanding of why different parties’ voters vote the way they do, in addition to demonstrating the validity of the more systemic-level explanatory factors provided by the literature through a broader picture of voter attitudes and perceptions and in a more succinct way.

5. The Empirical Study

5.1 Description of Case

The focus is on the municipality of Malmo, and those voters who voted for the Sweden Democrats in particular. I have gained access to relevant survey data from the survey “Society Opinion Mass Media: Scania 2006” that was conducted by the SOM-Institute at Gothenburg University. Unfortunately, the number of cases that I have to look at in the statistical data is relatively small, given my focus, but I feel that these numbers nonetheless give a greater and deeper picture of the feelings, beliefs, understandings and values of the Sweden Democrat voter in Malmo. In my analysis of the factors provided earlier, I am looking mostly at the individual level, utilizing voter-centered explanations to analyze the case rather than structural level explanations because I am trying to explain the voters’ attitudes.

The literature tends to focus on structural changes or the RRP parties themselves, neglecting the individual voter attitudes that have caused people to vote for this type of political party. My empirical analysis attempts to add to the conceptual debate by providing individual level explanations in addition to the theoretical discussion. This notion is associated with liberalism, where the individual is the most important actor in both politics and economics. This approach involves the complex process of human decision-making, which includes collecting information, studying and analyzing that information, creating goals, considering the options and making decisions (that is to say, voting). Because the individual voter lacks complete information and thus cannot achieve complete rationality, the voter is limited to a concept called bounded rationality. This is where the voter decides which information is most important, based on factors such as personality, emotions, cognition and social identity, and disregards other information in order to make choices. Of course, individual-level analysis has limitations. I can learn certain things from the voters, but I am missing out on the larger system- and state-level analyses, which certainly are substantially important. However, considering the nature of the survey data, voter- centered analysis is most fruitful.

The following are the criteria of how I have chosen my cases:

Municipality is one of my main two criteria since the focus of the study is on the municipality of Malmo, Sweden. It is important that the chosen cases represent residents of Malmo since I am interested in learning more about the economic and sociocultural views of these residents.

Municipality Election Vote Choice in 2006 is my other criterion when selecting cases since the focus of the research question is why people vote for the Sweden Democrats.

Demographics are important to take into consideration since I believe that each voter’s personal background and experiences influence the individuals’ thoughts and responses to questions about politics and policies. However, these are not determining factors in regards to the research question. Nevertheless, this data is not disregarded in order to add to the picture of what the Sweden Democrat voter looks like, and is included in Appendix 3.

5.2 Quantitative data analysis

The quantitative data functions as the basis for my analysis of the case. I began my quantitative analysis through analyzing a crosstabulation of which party voters voted for in the municipality of Malmo and in all other municipalities in the region of Scania (represented in Appendix 2). I conducted a variety of tests to check the strength and significance of the relationship between the variables. From there, I was interested in how the values would look if I layered the municipality of Malmo with Municipality Election Vote 2006, and then crosstabulated these with other variables that asked about the voters’ views on a range of relevant issues.

5.3 Bivariate analysis

Table 1

5. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Municipality Crosstabulation

Municipality All other municipalities in Malmo Scania Total 95. Municipality Election Left Party Count 32 73 105 Vote 2006 % 6,3% 3,6% 4,1% Social Democrats Count 181 618 799 % 35,7% 30,4% 31,5% Center Party Count 10 140 150 % 2,0% 6,9% 5,9% People’s Party Count 48 189 237 % 9,5% 9,3% 9,3% Moderates Count 108 564 672 % 21,3% 27,8% 26,5% Christian Democrats Count 17 86 103 % 3,4% 4,2% 4,1% Green Party Count 36 92 128 % 7,1% 4,5% 5,0% Sweden Democrats Count 36 115 151 % 7,1% 5,7% 6,0% Other Party Count 28 93 121 % 5,5% 4,6% 4,8% Blank Vote Count 11 60 71 % 2,2% 3,0% 2,8% Total Count 507 2030 2537 % 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Because where the voters lived (Municipality) and how the voters voted (Municipality Election Vote 2006) are both nominal variables, I conducted a Cramer’s V test to test the strength of the relationship, and a Chi-square test to test the significance of the correlation between the variables. From these tests, I learned that the Cramer’s V value was 0.131, and the closer this value is to 1, the stronger the correlation (Best, 2001). Thus, this appears to be a relatively satisfactory correlation. The P-value is greater than 99.9%, indicating that the relationship is extremely significant. This implies that the relationship can, with 99.9% certainty, be generalized to the larger population. The reason behind why I chose to analyze the variables Municipality and Municipality Election Vote 2006 was to gain knowledge of the correlation between how Malmo voters’ preferences differed from those in the greater region of Scania. From this crosstabulation

32 table, we learn that voters in Malmo voted for the Sweden Democrats in larger numbers than voters did in the other municipalities in Scania (7.1% versus 5.7%).

5.4 Multivariate analysis

5.4.1 Economic Factors – A post-industrial economy Although most of my analysis in this paper is done on the individual, voter-centered level, I will look at the structural level when analyzing whether or not a post-industrial economy is applicable as an explanatory factor in this case study. The hypothesis here is that the presence of a post- industrial economy makes the situation ripe for the emergence of and support for a RRP party. There has occurred a structural change of society from a Keynesian Welfare State following the Second World War and that peaked in the 1960s to a post-industrial economy where the political preferences and salient issues of citizens are different (Kitschelt 1995, 2). Widespread technical and institutional processes have resulted in an interdependent collection of market and work experiences in advanced post-industrial capitalism. In this economy, the individual is exposed. The working class individual is especially vulnerable, as the introduction of knowledge-intensive and specialized production systems, the expansion of the welfare state and the intensification of the global market have led to a decrease in unskilled work and workers (Ibid, p. 9). The more skilled workers are represented in the middle-of-the-road economic and political views of the mainstream parties, while those at the sidelines appeal to more authoritarian political parties. Additionally, the inflexibility of Western European welfare states’ labor markets make it particularly difficult for young, unskilled workers without organizational ties to turn to market liberalism, as a response to those institutions that weaken their positions.

Malmo’s economy was founded on shipbuilding, concrete factories and other construction-related industrial sectors. It did not get a university college until 1998, and the high-tech and educational centers were located elsewhere in the region of Scania, such as in Lund. Therefore, Malmo has struggled a great deal with the transition toward a post-industrial economy since the 1970s. Although membership in and integration into the European Union and a recently increasing economic integration with Copenhagen and Denmark in general have helped to revive the economy, there is still comparatively high unemployment in Malmo. The working class in Malmo has especially struggled in the post-industrial economy. This group is typically

33 dominantly male and prefers authoritarian management. This group also tends to have ethnocentric attitudes and market-liberal positioning. According to the demographics from the survey data found in Appendix 3, 72.2% of Malmo SD voters were male, as opposed to a more equal division of the genders among the other party voters in Malmo, and SD voters and other party voters in the rest of Scania. Also, Malmo SD voters tend to be younger than the Malmo voters for the other parties. The Malmo SD voters have a comparatively lower education background, the mode being middle to low education background among Malmo SD voters, and the mode being high among other party voters in Malmo, making Malmo SD voters more likely to be unskilled or semi-skilled workers.

Thus, the marginalized working class in Malmo may share the core values of RRP parties and would be more likely to support the Sweden Democrats. Therefore, according to the hypothesis that a post-industrial economy makes the situation riper for RRP party support may indeed apply to the case of SD voters in Malmo.

5.4.2 Economic Factors – Economic crisis and unemployment In line with the hypotheses behind the relationship between economic crisis and unemployment and support for RRP parties, when economic crisis exists, there is an increase in support for RRP parties; when unemployment increases, there is an increase in support for RRP parties.

For the entire population of Sweden, the percentage of gainfully employed individuals was at 75.6%. The number of gainfully employed individuals in Malmo was 62.8%, as opposed to 70.7% in Gothenburg and 73.7% in Stockholm (Sweden’s two larger cities). In Helsingborg, which is also located in the region of Scania, this number is at 71.6%. Therefore, Malmo has comparatively high unemployment figures, with numbers particularly high amongst its non- Swedish populations in the southern and eastern areas of the city (Strategic development, Malmo city), supporting the hypothesis that an increase in unemployment is positively correlated with an increase in support for RRP parties.

According to the individual perception of the Malmo municipal economy, responses to the question below were as follows:

Table 2

36a. What do you think of the economy – in the municipality where you live? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo

Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 36a. What do you think Good Count 8 67 1 13 17 2 8 3 7 1 127

of the economy – in the % 25,0% 37,7% 11,1% 27,1% 16,7% 12,5% 22,9% 8,8% 25,0% 9,1% 25,7%

municipality where you Count 7 43 1 6 20 7 7 9 8 1 109 live? Neither % 21,9% 24,2% 11,1% 12,5% 19,6% 43,8% 20,0% 26,5% 28,6% 9,1% 22,1%

Bad Count 7 21 2 9 23 3 3 13 7 0 88

% 21,9% 11,8% 22,2% 18,8% 22,5% 18,8% 8,6% 38,2% 25,0% ,0% 17,9%

No Count 10 47 5 20 42 4 17 9 6 9 169

idea % 31,3% 26,4% 55,6% 41,7% 41,2% 25,0% 48,6% 26,5% 21,4% 81,8% 34,3%

Total Count 32 178 9 48 102 16 35 34 28 11 493

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

From this table, we find that a good deal of Malmo SD voter respondents answer Pretty bad (35.3%), Neither good nor bad (26.5%), or No idea (26.5%). This is as compared to the Malmo Social Democrat voters who have the majority of their responses as Pretty good (32.6%), No idea (26.4%), or Neither good nor bad (24.2%); and Malmo Moderate voters with a majority of either No idea responses (41.2%) or responses in the middle of the spectrum (14.7% Pretty good, 19.6% Neither good nor bad, 17.6% Pretty bad). Therefore, Malmo SD voters have a comparatively negative perception of their municipal economy; in fact, this perception is comparatively the most negative of all the Malmo voter respondents.

These results are in line with the hypothesis that support for a RRP party increases when economic problems increase. However, it is important to note that a large number of respondents answered No idea on this question, implying that many of them were unsure of the condition their municipality’s economy.

Table 3

92aa. Development in Sweden in the last 5 years within – the economy * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 92aa. Development in Positive Count 15 114 6 29 65 6 18 18 17 3 291

Sweden in the last 5 % 46,9% 64,4% 60,0% 60,5% 60,2% 35,3% 50,0% 50,0% 60,7% 27,3% 57,8%

years within – the Neither Count 4 38 4 8 15 9 6 10 5 5 104 economy % 12,5% 21,5% 40,0% 16,7% 13,9% 52,9% 16,7% 27,8% 17,9% 45,5% 20,7%

Negative Count 12 14 0 8 23 2 10 5 5 2 81

% 37,6% 7,9% ,0% 16,7% 21,3% 11,8% 27,8% 13,9% 17,9% 18,2% 16,1 %

No idea Count 1 11 0 3 5 0 2 3 1 1 27

% 3,1% 6,2% ,0% 6,3% 4,6% ,0% 5,6% 8,3% 3,6% 9,1% 5,4%

Total Count 32 177 10 48 108 17 36 36 28 11 503

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

The above table is in contrast to the perceptions of the municipal economy table. Here, we see a more positive perception of the Swedish economy’s development in the last five years by Malmo SD voters, with Pretty positive (36.1%), Neither positive nor negative (27.8%), and Very positive (13.9%) as the most common responses. Still, with a more positive perception of the Swedish economy’s recent development, the Malmo SD voters have fewer positive responses than the majority of the other parties’ voters, with the exception of Malmo Left Party voters and those who voted blank.

Table 4

92ac. Development in Sweden in the last 5 years within – people’s living conditions * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 92ac. Development in Positive Count 11 71 5 20 45 3 13 12 11 3 194

Sweden in the last 5 % 34,4% 39,9% 50,0% 41,7% 41,6% 18,8% 36,1% 33,4% 39,3% 27,3% 38,6%

years within – people’s Neither Count 9 73 2 17 37 11 11 9 11 2 182 living conditions % 28,1% 41,0% 20,0% 35,4% 34,3% 68,8% 30,6% 25,0% 39,3% 18,2% 36,2%

Negative Count 11 23 3 8 22 2 10 13 4 5 101

% 34,4% 12,9% 30,0% 16,7% 20,4% 12,6% 27,8% 36,1% 14,3% 45,5% 20,1%

No idea Count 1 11 0 3 4 0 2 2 2 1 26

% 3,1% 6,2% ,0% 6,3% 3,7% ,0% 5,6% 5,6% 7,1% 9,1% 5,2%

Total Count 32 178 10 48 108 16 36 36 28 11 503

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Responses to the question about people’s living conditions by the Malmo SD voters are more around the middle of the spectrum, although there remain a larger number of negative responses by these voters than those voting for other parties in Malmo. This seems to be partially in line with the original hypothesis.

Interestingly enough, if we look at the Malmo SD voters’ perceptions of economic development in Denmark in the last five years in Appendix 2, we see a significantly more positive perception of the situation, with a majority (57.2%) responding with either a Very positive or Pretty positive perception of Denmark’s economic development. Additionally, a majority of Malmo SD voters’ responses (51.4%) are either Very Positive or Pretty positive regarding development in Danish people’s living conditions in the last five years. These numbers are noticeably higher than the perceptions of other parties’ voters in Malmo. This may be because the Danish government is led by a more conservative party – Venstre, a center-right party – than that in Sweden. It should be pointed out that a large number of respondents answered No idea about the Danish economic and living conditions questions.

Table 5

98aa. In your opinion, has the economic condition changed in the last 12 months in – your own economic situation? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 98aa. In your opinion, Become Count 7 39 3 12 41 4 11 15 3 3 138

has the economic better % 21,9% 21,8% 30,0% 25,0% 38,0% 25,0% 30,6% 41,7% 10,7% 27,3% 27,4%

condition changed in Remained Count 17 111 4 32 56 7 15 16 19 5 282 the last 12 months in – about the % your own economic 53,1% 62,0% 40,0% 66,7% 51,9% 43,8% 41,7% 44,4% 67,9% 45,5% 56,0% same situation? Gotten Count 8 29 3 4 11 5 10 5 6 3 84

worse % 25,0% 16,2% 30,0% 8,3% 10,2% 31,3% 27,8% 13,9% 21,4% 27,3% 16,7%

Total Count 32 179 10 48 108 16 36 36 28 11 504

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Responses to this question about perceptions of one’s own economic situation by Malmo SD voters are appreciably more positive than questions about the municipal and Swedish economies, with a vast majority (86.1%) perceiving their own economic situation as either better or about the same as in the last 12 months. This is comparable to other Malmo voters’ perceptions.

Table 6

98ab. In your opinion, has the economic condition changed in the last 12 months in – the economy in your municipality? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 98ab. In your opinion, Become Count 3 27 0 9 5 0 4 0 0 2 50

has the economic better % 9,4% 15,7% ,0% 19,1% 4,8% ,0% 11,4% ,0% ,0% 18,2% 10,2%

condition changed in Remained Count 25 128 9 35 86 13 25 28 23 5 377 the last 12 months in – about the % the economy in your 78,1% 74,4% 100,0% 74,5% 81,9% 81,3% 71,4% 77,8% 82,1% 45,5% 76,8% same municipality? Gotten Count 4 17 0 3 14 3 6 8 5 4 64

worse % 12,5% 9,9% ,0% 6,4% 13,3% 18,8% 17,1% 22,2% 17,9% 36,4% 13,0%

Total Count 32 172 9 47 105 16 35 36 28 11 491

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Contrastingly, we see a clear shift toward the negative with Malmo SD voters’ responses to the question regarding perceptions of the municipal economy in the last 12 months. Now, all responses are either remained the same (77.8%) or gotten worse (22.2%), with no responses become better. This stands out against the parties more towards the left of the political spectrum (Left Party, Social Democrats, Green Party), but is in line with those towards the right of the political spectrum (Center Party and Christian Democrats).

Table 7

98bb. How do you think the economic condition will change in the coming 12 months in – the economy in your municipality? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 98bb. How do you think Become Count 2 14 2 12 26 3 4 4 2 2 71

the economic condition better % 6,3% 8,3% 20,0% 25,0% 24,5% 17,6% 11,4% 11,1% 7,7% 18,2% 14,5%

will change in the coming Remain Count 14 118 8 30 69 13 22 21 18 7 320 12 months in – the about the % economy in your 43,8% 69,8% 80,0% 62,5% 65,1% 76,5% 62,9% 58,3% 69,2% 63,6% 65,3% same municipality? Get Count 16 37 0 6 11 1 9 11 6 2 99

worse % 50,0% 21,9% ,0% 12,5% 10,4% 5,9% 25,7% 30,6% 23,1% 18,2% 20,2%

Total Count 32 169 10 48 106 17 35 36 26 11 490

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Moreover, if we look at results from Malmo SD voters’ perceptions of the municipal economy’s prospects for the future, we see a more or less equally negative picture. In contrast, Malmo voters for other parties tend to have a more positive or neutral perception of the municipal economy’s prospects for the future.

99. How would you judge the possibility for today’s children and youth to be able to get in the future?: Very good possibility, Pretty good possibility, Neither good nor bad possibility, Pretty bad possibility, Very bad possibility a. A good education b. A good job d. The same welfare as today

Responses to question 99 by Malmo SD voters about perceptions for the prospect for the future for today’s children and youth in the areas of getting a good job and receiving the same welfare as today also tend to fall towards the negative end of the spectrum. The results can be found in Appendix 2. This would tend to be in line with the overall somewhat negative picture of Malmo

SD voters’ perceptions of both the Malmo municipal and Swedish economies. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a considerable positive relationship in this case between support for RRP parties and at least perceptions of economic problems.

5.4.3 Sociocultural Factors – Fragmentation of the culture and multiculturalization The hypothesis attached to these explanatory factors is that an increase in the fragmentation of the culture and an increase in multiculturalization lead to an increase in support for RRP parties. In the following map of Malmo and corresponding table, we are able to determine whether or not there is a geographical fragmentation of the culture in the municipality of Malmo.

Figure 3, Source: Strategic development, Malmo city

Table 8 Malmo Municipality Inhabitants as of 1 January 2006 Total # of # of Foreign-Born % of Foreign- City District Inhabitants Inhabitants Born Oxie 10846 2614 24.1% Limhamn-Bunkeflo 33737 5570 16.5% Rosengård 21447 13381 62.4% Kirseberg 13869 4037 29.1% Husie 18236 3434 18.8% Fosie 39614 18482 46.7% Hyllie 30711 9476 30.9% Södra Innerstaden 32089 11036 34.4% Västra Innerstaden 31210 3896 12.5% Centrum 38233 10284 26.9%

Source: Strategic development, Malmo city

In all of Malmo, the total number of foreign-born inhabitants is 83,209, or 27% of the population in the municipality. The city districts of Rosengård, Fosie and Södra Innerstaden have the largest proportion of foreign-born residents with 62.4%, 46.7% and 34.4% foreign-born residents respectively. Swedish families living in houses tend to live in Limhamn-Bunkeflo and Oxie. Thus, we can see that where the immigrants live and where the Swedish families live represents a geographical fragmentation of the local culture.

Table 9

65e. People sometimes talk about Sweden having become a multicultural society. Do you think that this development has been positive or negative in the area of languages? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 65e. People sometimes talk Positive Count 18 77 6 21 38 5 18 4 5 2 194

about Sweden having % 58,0% 43,7% 60,0% 44,7 % 35,8% 33,4% 51,4% 11,4% 18,5% 18,2% 39,3% become a multicultural Neither Count 6 51 2 17 31 5 7 7 8 4 138 society. Do you think that

this development has been % 19,4% 29,0% 20,0% 36,2% 29,2% 33,3% 20,0% 20,0% 28,6% 36,4% 27,9%

positive or negative in the Negative Count 4 26 2 6 32 5 7 24 12 4 132

area of languages? % 13,0% 20,5% 20,0% 12,8% 30,2% 33,4% 20,0% 68,6% 40,7% 36,4% 26,7%

No idea Count 3 12 0 3 5 0 3 0 3 1 30

% 9,7% 6,8% ,0% 6,4% 4,7% ,0% 8,6% ,0% 10,7% 9,1% 6,1%

Total Count 31 176 10 47 106 15 35 35 28 11 494

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

A clear majority of Malmo SD voters (68.6%) perceive the development of Sweden as a multicultural society in the area of languages as negative. This is a notably more negative perception of this development than that given by other party voters in Malmo.

Table 10

65f. People sometimes talk about Sweden having become a multicultural society. Do you think that this development has

been positive or negative in the area of religion? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 65f. People sometimes talk Positive Count 11 41 3 10 18 1 13 0 1 1 99

about Sweden having % 35,5% 23,3% 30,0% 20,9% 17,0% 6,7% 37,2% ,0% 3,6% 9,1% 20,0% become a multicultural

Neither Count 6 58 3 13 25 5 6 2 5 3 126 society. Do you think that

this development has been % 19,4% 33,0% 30,0% 27,1% 23,6% 33,3% 17,1% 5,7% 17,9% 27,3% 25,5%

positive or negative in the Negative Count 10 65 3 24 60 8 11 33 18 7 239 area of religion? % 32,2% 37,0% 30,0% 50,0% 56,6% 53,3% 31,4% 94,2% 64,2% 63,7% 48,3%

No idea Count 4 12 1 1 3 1 5 0 4 0 31

% 12,9% 6,8% 10,0% 2,1% 2,8% 6,7% 14,3% ,0% 14,3% ,0% 6,3%

Total Count 31 176 10 48 106 15 35 35 28 11 495

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Again, the overwhelming majority of Malmo SD voters (94.2%) consider the development of Sweden as a multicultural society in the area of religion as negative. This is considerably higher than those perceptions stated by all other party voters in Malmo. The area of religion is especially interesting, as there are a large number of Muslim immigrants to the city of Malmo, which may be perceived as a threat to religious or cultural values by Malmo SD voters. This particularly negative perception of multicultural developments is continued in the results within the areas of the economy (80% negative responses), politics (74.2% negative responses) and crime (100% negative responses), which can be found in Appendix 2. These negative perceptions of multiculturalization are all considerably more prevalent among Malmo SD voters than among other party voters in Malmo, with single exceptions among those who voted blank.

Although these findings neither prove nor disprove an increase in multiculturalization in Malmo, there clearly exists the perception of multiculturalization as existent, and by Malmo SD voters, as particularly negative. Thus, there is a strong correlation between the perception of increased multiculturalization and support for RRP parties in this case.

5.4.4 Sociocultural Factors – Popular xenophobia and racism The most common explanatory factor behind the emergence, support for and success of RRP parties in Western Europe is popular xenophobia and racism. According to this hypothesis, a greater presence of xenophobia and racism is positively correlated with greater support for RRP parties.

Table 11

30b. Opinion of suggestions in the political debate-Take in fewer refugees in Sweden * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 *

Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 30b. Suggestions in the Good Count 9 87 3 29 70 9 7 34 24 6 278

political debate-Take in suggestion % 29,0% 49,2% 30,0% 60,4% 65,5% 56,3% 19,4% 97,1% 85,7% 60,0% 55,8%

fewer refugees in Neither Count 3 46 1 13 22 4 10 0 2 2 103 Sweden * 95. % 9,7% 26,0% 10,0% 27,1% 20,6% 25,0% 27,8% ,0% 7,1% 20,0% 20,7% Municipality Election Vote

2006 * Malmo Bad Count 19 44 6 6 15 3 19 1 2 2 117

Crosstabulation suggestion % 61,3% 24,9% 60,0% 12,6% 14,0% 18,8% 52,8% 2,9% 7,1% 20,0% 23,5%

Total Count 31 177 10 48 107 16 36 35 28 10 498

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

The above table demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of Malmo SD voters (91.4%) think that taking in fewer refugees in Sweden is a very good suggestion, a number plainly higher than that of the other party voters in Malmo. The definitions used in this paper for racism and xenophobia were given in the theory chapter. Racism was defined as an inherent struggle between the races, and xenophobia was defined as a fear of the other and the foreign. As these results would not fall under the category of racism, they would be associated with xenophobia. Therefore, there is an observed strong correlation between increased xenophobia and support for a RRP party in this case.

If we look at responses to question 66a in Appendix 2 regarding whether or not immigrants’ poor knowledge of the Swedish language is the crucial obstacle for integration, interestingly enough, most Malmo voters for other parties tend to agree with the statement that immigrants’ poor

45 knowledge of the Swedish language is the crucial obstacle for integration in the above table. The mode response is 10, or that this is a completely correct statement. This is no different among Malmo SD voters, with 82.9% giving a score of 7 or higher in agreement with this statement. However, Malmo SD voters do tend to agree with this statement more often and more strongly than the Malmo voters for other parties.

Again, if we look at responses to question 66d in Appendix 2 regarding whether or not a lack of interest among the immigrants themselves prevents integration, the mode response is 10, or a completely correct statement, given by all Malmo voters to the statement that a lack of interest among the immigrants themselves prevents integration. Still, the Malmo SD voters tend to agree more often and more strongly with this statement, as correspondingly observed in the previous table. We can observe a similarly although slightly less critical view of immigrants and their obstacles for integration in Appendix 2 regarding discrimination in the labor market as an obstacle and the Swedes’ negative attitudes towards immigrants as an obstacle.

It is additionally worthy to refer above to the tables for questions 65e and 65f (under the headline Fragmentation of the culture and multiculturalization). Yet again, we find the particularly negative attitudes and perceptions of Malmo SD voters as compared to the voters for other parties in Malmo regarding questions about multiculturalization.

It is extremely difficult to classify any of these attitudes as racist. In fact, I find it impossible to quantify racism in this case – particularly with a survey – at all. A researcher would need to look much deeper into the attitudes behind these responses, perhaps through the method of interview. Nonetheless, these attitudes are almost certainly at least xenophobic. Thus, we are able to quantify a strong positive correlation between xenophobia and support for RRP parties, with there being the possibility for a positive relationship between racism and support for RRP parties as well.

5.4.5 Sociocultural Factors – Widespread political discontentment and disenchantment The hypothesis associated with this explanatory factor is that those that vote for RRP parties tend to be especially discontent and disenchanted with the current government and mainstream political parties.

Table 12

19. How do you think the government manages its tasks? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 19. How do you think Well Count 5 75 6 12 34 6 6 2 3 0 149

the government % 15,6% 43,4% 66,7% 25,6% 34,0% 37,6% 16,7% 5,9% 10,7% ,0% 30,7%

manages its tasks? Neither Count 12 67 2 20 38 5 19 14 14 4 195

% 37,5% 38,7% 22,2% 42,6% 38,0% 31,3% 52,8% 41,2% 50,0% 36,4% 40,1%

Poorly Count 15 31 1 15 28 5 11 18 11 7 142

% 46,9% 17,9% 11,1% 31,9% 28,0% 31,3% 30,5% 52,9% 39,3% 63,6% 29,2%

Total Count 32 173 9 47 100 16 36 34 28 11 486

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

According to responses by Malmo SD voters to the question of how well the government manages its tasks, there is an apparent leaning towards a negative perception of this management. A majority of Malmo SD voters (52.9%) consider the government’s management as either pretty poor or very poor, with a large number (41.2%) in the middle, and very few (5.9%) considering this management good. This rather negative perception is comparatively more common among Malmo SD voters than every other party’s voters, with the exception of those who voted blank. This seems to show a relatively strong correlation between dissatisfaction with the government and RRP party support in this case.

Table 13

26a. How do you think that the municipal council in the municipality where you live manages its tasks? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 26a. How do you think Well Count 9 91 4 17 23 4 9 5 9 0 171

that the municipal % 29,0% 51,4% 40,0% 35,4% 21,7% 25,1% 25,8% 14,3% 32,1% ,0% 34,4%

council in the Neither Count 6 42 1 13 32 6 10 8 11 4 133 municipality where you % 19,4% 23,7% 10,0% 27,1% 30,2% 37,5% 28,6% 22,9% 39,3% 40,0% 26,8% live manages its tasks?

Poorly Count 7 13 1 5 22 2 4 16 5 2 77

% 22,6% 7,3% 10,0% 10,5% 20,7% 12,5% 11,4% 45,8% 17,8% 20,0% 15,5%

No Count 9 31 4 13 29 4 12 6 7 4 115

idea % 29,0% 17,5% 40,0% 27,1% 27,4% 25,0% 34,3% 17,1% 25,0% 40,0% 23,2%

Total Count 31 177 10 48 106 16 35 35 28 10 496

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Similarly, a plurality of Malmo SD voters (45.8%) considers the management of tasks by the Malmo municipal council as either pretty poor or very poor. This is also a notably more negative perception of municipal council management than that of Malmo voters for other parties.

Table 14

20d. On the whole, how satisfied are you with the way in which democracy works in the municipality where you live? * 95.

Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 20d. On the whole, how Satisfied Count 24 137 8 38 72 11 26 11 16 7 350

satisfied are you with the % 75,0% 78,7% 88,9% 80,9% 72,8% 68,8% 74,3% 34,4% 61,6% 70,0% 72,9%

way in which democracy Not Count 8 37 1 9 27 5 9 21 10 3 130 works in the municipality satisfied % where you live? 25,0% 21,3% 11,1% 19,2% 27,3% 31,3% 25,8% 65,6% 38,5% 30,0% 27,1%

Total Count 32 174 9 47 99 16 35 32 26 10 480

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Here again, we find a dissatisfied perception among Malmo SD voters with the way in which democracy works in Malmo. 65.6% are dissatisfied with democracy’s function in Malmo, while 34.4% are satisfied with its functioning. These numbers are also noticeably higher among Malmo SD voters than Malmo voters for every other party, demonstrating support for the hypothesis.

Table 15

21d. What possibility do you think you have to influence political decisions in the municipality where you live? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 21d. What possibility do Good Count 6 27 5 15 18 3 6 4 1 1 86

you think you have to possibility % 18,7% 15,8% 50,0% 32,0% 17,9% 18,8% 17,2% 11,8% 3,7% 9,1% 17,8%

influence political Neither Count 6 49 2 18 40 4 14 7 11 2 153 decisions in the % 18,8% 28,7% 20,0% 38,3% 39,6% 25,0% 40,0% 20,6% 40,7% 18,2% 31,6% municipality where you

live? Bad Count 18 76 2 11 31 6 11 16 12 5 188

possibility % 54,3% 44,4% 20,0% 23,4% 30,7% 37,6% 31,4% 47,0% 44,4% 45,5% 38,9%

No idea Count 2 19 1 3 12 3 4 7 3 3 57

% 6,3% 11,1% 10,0% 6,4% 11,9% 18,8% 11,4% 20,6% 11,1% 27,3% 11,8%

Total Count 32 171 10 47 101 16 35 34 27 11 484

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Once again, Malmo SD voters tend to have a more negative view of their possibility to influence political decisions in Malmo than positive. 47% consider their possibility to influence political decisions either pretty bad or very bad, while 11.8% think they have a pretty good possibility, 20.6% are in the middle, and 20.6% have no idea. However, the Malmo voters for the other parties also all have a plurality of negative responses, with the exception of Malmo Center Party voters, making this correlation seem less noteworthy.

Table 16

29c. Generally speaking, how much trust do you have for how this group manages its tasks – the municipality’s

politicians? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 29c. Generally speaking, A lot of Count 1 13 0 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 21

how much trust do you trust % 3,1% 7,4% ,0% 8,3% 1,9% ,0% 2,9% ,0% ,0% ,0% 4,2%

have for how this group A fair Count 8 55 5 16 24 5 6 3 6 0 128 manages its tasks – the amount % municipality’s politicians? 25,0% 31,3% 50,0% 33,3% 22,4% 31,3% 17,1% 8,6% 22,2% ,0% 25,8% of trust

Neither a Count 11 67 4 15 39 4 16 8 14 1 179

lot nor a % 34,4% 38,1% 40,0% 31,3% 36,4% 25,0% 45,7% 22,9% 51,9% 9,1% 36,0% little trust

Not so Count 5 15 1 10 19 1 7 10 5 3 76

much % 15,6% 8,5% 10,0% 20,8% 17,8% 6,3% 20,0% 28,6% 18,5% 27,3% 15,3% trust

Very little Count 3 8 0 2 11 3 1 10 1 3 42

trust % 9,4% 4,5% ,0% 4,2% 10,3% 18,8% 2,9% 28,6% 3,7% 27,3% 8,5%

No idea Count 4 18 0 1 12 3 4 4 1 4 51

% 12,5% 10,2% ,0% 2,1% 11,2% 18,8% 11,4% 11,4% 3,7% 36,4% 10,3%

Total Count 32 176 10 48 107 16 35 35 27 11 497

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Finally, there is an observed lack of trust among Malmo SD voters for Malmo’s municipal politicians. There is a comparatively lower amount of trust among Malmo SD voters for these politicians than among all other party voters in Malmo (although those who voted blank have a comparable lack of trust). A similar trend can be found regarding trust for Swedish parliamentarians and Malmo’s municipal employees in Appendix 2.

As follows, we can observe a strong positive correlation between political discontentment and disenchantment and support for RRP parties in the Malmo case.

5.4.6 Sociocultural Factors – Opposition to European Union membership Opposition to membership in the EU is common among RRP party supporters. According to the hypothesis found in the literature, an anti-EU stance is positively correlated with support for RRP parties.

After several years of objections and heavy disputing, Sweden finally joined the European Union in 1995 after a referendum in Parliament. The hesitancy to fully trust the EU has nonetheless survived over the years based on several factors, including the issue of geographical proximity, questions of efficiency, and a reluctance to integrate into continental Europe and EU institutions. Swedish citizens are skeptical about the EU (Ekengren 146; Aylott 2002; Aylott 1999, 182) as they feel they are too far from the action in Brussels to feel like the money they are paying with their tax dollars to finance the EU is truly benefiting them (Aylott 1999, 183). This is especially true in the northern part of Sweden and in smaller cities, where the effects of EU policy are felt even less. People in southern Sweden and in larger cities tend to be more in favor of the EU as they tend to have a better impression of the advantages of being an EU member.

Accordingly, there may be a fallacy here when applying this factor to Sweden. For example, in the northern parts of Sweden, where there is a more negative the attitude towards the EU, there are also fewer Sweden Democrat voters. As southern Sweden voters in general tend to have a more positive attitude towards the EU, so logically would southern Swedish SD voters, based simply on proximity to the continent. Thus, it should be stated again that these results apply to the individual voter-level, but on the systemic level, this study lacks the data to observe this phenomenon more closely.

Table 17

22. What is your opinion of Sweden’s membership in the EU? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 22. What is your Mainly for Count 11 91 7 37 77 7 17 14 16 5 282

opinion of Sweden’s % 34,4% 51,1% 70,0% 78,7% 75,5% 41,2% 47,2% 41,2% 57,1% 45,5% 57,0%

membership in the Mainly Count 18 48 1 6 14 6 14 15 8 3 133 EU? against % 56,3% 27,0% 10,0% 12,8% 13,7% 35,3% 38,9% 44,1% 28,6% 27,3% 26,9%

Have no Count 3 39 2 4 11 4 5 5 4 3 80

opinion on % 9,4% 21,9% 20,0% 8,5% 10,8% 23,5% 13,9% 14,7% 14,3% 27,3% 16,2% the matter

Total Count 32 178 10 47 102 17 36 34 28 11 495

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Question 22 is clearly very relevant in testing this hypothesis. As we see above, there is only a slightly higher opposition (44.1%) to Sweden’s membership in the EU among Malmo SD voters. This would seem to contradict the hypothesis in this case. However, a comparison with the other party voters in Malmo shows that Malmo SD voters have a comparatively higher opposition to EU membership than the other party voters, with the exception of the voters for the Left Party. Although this certainly does not prove the hypothesis, it does show a comparatively higher positive correlation between an anti-EU stance and RRP party support.

Table 18

20a. On the whole, how satisfied are you with the way in which democracy works in the EU? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 20a. On the whole, how Satisfied Count 4 74 7 30 57 5 9 10 10 4 210

satisfied are you with % 12,5% 42,8% 70,0% 65,2% 57,5% 29,4% 25,0% 28,6% 37,0% 40,0% 43,3%

the way in which Not Count 28 99 3 16 42 12 27 25 17 6 275 democracy works in the satisfied % EU? 87,5% 57,2% 30,0% 34,8% 42,4% 70,6% 75,0% 71,5% 62,9% 60,0% 56,7%

Total Count 32 173 10 46 99 17 36 35 27 10 485

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Question 20 is also highly relevant in testing this hypothesis. In the above table, there is a majority (71.5%) of dissatisfied Malmo SD voters concerning democracy functioning within the EU. Discontentment with the way the EU works would tend to make sense when we consider the hypothesis that opposition to the EU is positively correlated with support for RRP parties.

Table 19

21a. What possibility do you think you have to influence political decisions in the EU? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 21a. What possibility Good Count 2 5 1 6 5 2 2 0 1 0 24

do you think you have possibility % 6,2% 2,9% 10,0% 12,8% 4,9% 11,8% 5,6% ,0% 3,6% ,0% 4,9%

to influence political Neither Count 0 23 2 5 28 3 3 3 6 1 74 decisions in the EU? % ,0% 13,1% 20,0% 10,6% 27,5% 17,6% 8,3% 8,6% 21,4% 9,1% 15,0%

Bad Count 29 120 4 33 59 8 26 24 16 7 326

possibility % 90,6% 68,5% 40,0% 70,2% 57,9% 47,1% 72,2% 68,5% 57,2% 53,7% 66,1%

No idea Count 1 27 3 3 10 4 5 8 5 3 69

% 3,1% 15,4% 30,0% 6,4% 9,8% 23,5% 13,9% 22,9% 17,9% 27,3% 14,0%

Total Count 32 175 10 47 102 17 36 35 28 11 493

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Responses to question 21 by Malmo SD voters show an even more negative view towards EU membership. 68.5% of these respondents consider their possibility to influence political decisions in the EU as either pretty bad or very bad, with none of these respondents considering this possibility as good. This perception of a lack of the possibility to have any say in the goings-on in the EU by Malmo SD voters could certainly have an effect on for which party they give their support.

Table 20

29a. Generally speaking, how much trust do you have for how this group manages its tasks – EU-parliamentarians? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 29a. Generally speaking, A lot of Count 0 4 0 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 12

how much trust do you trust % ,0% 2,3% ,0% 8,3% 2,8% ,0% 2,8% ,0% ,0% ,0% 2,4%

have for how this group A fair Count 5 29 4 12 24 1 4 4 4 1 88 manages its tasks – EU- amount % parliamentarians? 15,6% 16,6% 40,0% 25,0% 22,4% 6,3% 11,1% 11,4% 14,8% 9,1% 17,7% of trust

Neither a Count 6 60 5 20 33 3 14 8 10 1 160

lot nor a % 18,8% 34,3% 50,0% 41,7% 30,8% 18,8% 38,9% 22,9% 37,0% 9,1% 32,2% little trust

Not so Count 12 33 0 8 22 2 7 6 2 2 94

much % 37,5% 18,9% ,0% 16,7% 20,6% 12,5% 19,4% 17,1% 7,4% 18,2% 18,9% trust

Very little Count 5 21 1 1 7 5 4 9 0 1 54

trust % 15,6% 12,0% 10,0% 2,1% 6,5% 31,3% 11,1% 25,7% ,0% 9,1% 10,9%

No idea Count 4 28 0 3 18 5 6 8 11 6 89

% 12,5% 16,0% ,0% 6,3% 16,8% 31,3% 16,7% 22,9% 40,7% 54,5% 17,9%

Total Count 32 175 10 48 107 16 36 35 27 11 497

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

In the above table, 11.4% of Malmo SD voters have a fair amount of trust, 22.9% have neither a lot nor a little trust, and 42.8% have either not so much trust or very little trust in the way that EU-parliamentarians manage their tasks. Therefore, there is a clear plurality of a lack of trust

54 among these voters for EU-parliamentarians. This is comparatively lower trust than Malmo voters for the Social Democrats, Center Party, People’s Party, Moderates, Green Party or those voting for other parties or voting blank.

Thus, we in fact do see a positive correlation at least between individual dissatisfaction with the EU and RRP party support, although the correlation is not particularly strong. After observing a slightly higher comparative opposition to EU membership among Malmo SD voters, a deeper look into questions about how democracy works in the EU, possibility to influence political decisions in the EU and trust for EU-parliamentarians reveals a distinct suggestion of dissatisfaction with the EU among Malmo SD voters, seeming to help this hypothesis hold up more in this case.

5.4.7 Sociocultural Factors – Shifting salience of issues The hypothesis behind this explanatory factor is that as certain issues become more salient (especially the immigration issue, but also those that are more represented by RRP party platforms than by other parties), there is an increase in support for RRP parties. For this explanatory factor, we look at Malmo voters’ responses to the following question:

30. The following list comprises a number of suggestions that have come up in the political debate. What is your opinion of each of them? Very good suggestion, Pretty good suggestion, Neither good nor bad suggestion, Pretty bad suggestion, Very bad suggestion a. Reduce the public sector b. Take in fewer refugees in Sweden e. Run more of the healthcare sector privately f. Raise municipal/regional taxes rather than reducing services j. Lower taxes m. Keep the real estate tax

Table 21

30a. Opinion of suggestions in the political debate-Reduce the public sector * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo

Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 30a. Opinion of Good Count 5 31 8 36 69 9 5 10 15 2 190

suggestions in the political suggestion % 16,2% 18,1% 80,0% 75,0% 65,1% 56,3% 13,9% 29,4% 53,5% 20,0% 38,8%

debate-Reduce the public Neither Count 2 37 2 5 21 6 9 12 7 4 105 sector * 95. Municipality % 6,5% 21,6% 20,0% 10,4% 19,8% 37,5% 25,0% 35,3% 25,0% 40,0% 21,4% Election Vote 2006 *

Malmo Crosstabulation Bad Count 24 103 0 7 16 1 22 12 6 4 195

suggestion % 77,4% 60,2% ,0% 14,6% 15,1% 6,3% 61,1% 35,2% 21,4% 40,0% 39,7%

Total Count 31 171 10 48 106 16 36 34 28 10 490

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Here we find that Malmo SD voters give a slightly more negative response to the suggestion to reduce the public sector. There is a continued slightly negative trend towards these neoliberal economic suggestions (those that gave more power to the private sector and took away power from the public sector), such as to run more of the healthcare sector privately, to raise municipal or regional taxes rather than reducing services and to keep the real estate tax. Interestingly enough, RRP parties and their supporters tend to typically be in favor of a neoliberal economic agenda. Malmo SD voters were on the fence about or not in favor of most neoliberal economic suggestions except for the suggestion to lower taxes, which most were in favor of (refer to Appendix 2 for tables).

Table 22

30b. Opinion of suggestions in the political debate-Take in fewer refugees in Sweden * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 *

Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Left Social Center People’s Christian Green Sweden Other Blank

Municipality Party Democrats Party Party Moderates Democrats Party Democrats party vote Total

Malmo 30b. Opinion of Good Count 9 87 3 29 70 9 7 34 20 6 278

suggestions in the suggestion % 29,0% 49,2% 30,0% 60,4% 65,5% 56,3% 30,5% 97,1% 71,4% 60,0% 55,8%

political debate-Take in Neither Count 3 46 1 13 22 4 10 0 2 2 103 fewer refugees in % 9,7% 26,0% 10,0% 27,1% 20,6% 25,0% 27,8% ,0% 7,1% 20,0% 20,7% Sweden * 95. Municipality

Election Vote 2006 * Bad Count 19 44 6 6 15 3 19 1 2 2 117

Malmo Crosstabulation suggestion % 61,3% 24,9% 60,0% 12,6% 14,0% 18,8% 52,8% 2,9% 7,1% 20,0% 23,5%

Total Count 31 177 10 48 107 16 36 35 28 10 498

% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Malmo SD voters’ responses to this suggestion are much more typical of RRP party supporters. The overwhelming majority (97.1%) consider the suggestion to take in fewer refugees in Sweden in the political debate as a good suggestion. The Malmo voters for other parties differ a great deal across the board whether they consider this suggestion good, bad or neither. Thus, it is clear where the Malmo SD voters stand on the issue of immigration, specifically refugee acceptance, and how important this issue should be in the political debate.

According to the hypothesis associated with the differing salience of issues as an explanatory factor for the increase in support for RRP parties, we find that immigration as an issue is strongly positively correlated with support for RRP parties in the Malmo case. Worthy of note here is that neoliberal economic issues do not seem to be as decisive of factors for RRP party support in this case as would be expected.

6. Conclusion

The purpose of this thesis has been to test the validity of the explanatory factors behind the support for radical right-wing populist parties in Western Europe as provided by the literature when applied to the case of the Sweden Democrats in Malmo, Sweden. The research question was, How can the voter support for the Sweden Democrats in the city of Malmo in the 2006 election be explained? This paper has focused on seven explanatory factors provided by the literature as applied to the Malmo case. The hypotheses associated with these factors were tested through some theoretical analysis and mainly quantitative analysis of survey data. In order to get a more comprehensive understanding of individual voters’ attitudes perceptions of the current conditions in the municipality of Malmo, a mostly individual level of analysis was utilized. The results were the following:

Economic Factors 1. A post-industrial economy: The hypothesis is that a post-industrial economy makes the situation more disposed to greater voter support of RRP parties. According to the characteristics of how a post-industrial economy is represented in the literature, Malmo is classified as such, and the hypothesis would apply to the case of SD voters in Malmo. Additionally, the demographics of Malmo SD voters as provided by the survey data correspond with the typical RRP party voter.

Accordingly, there is a great deal of support for the hypotheses provided in the literature as applying to the case of voter support for the Sweden Democrats in Malmo. Although this paper’s purpose was not to make predictions about the future, the current conditions may provide a situation more mature for increased support for this type of party in Malmo and throughout Sweden. Further research into this case, possibly with a greater deal of qualitative analysis (such as interviews and focus groups) could give deeper insight into the voter-centered attitudes behind support for RRP parties in Malmo, Sweden. Moreover, comparative analyses with this case and local case studies in other cities in Sweden or in other Western European countries would be productive additions to the field of research.

7. References

Aylott, Nicholas (1999). Swedish Social Democracy and European Integration. Aldershot; Ashgate (chapter 8).

Aylott, Nicholas (2002). “Europe and the Swedish Parliamentary Elections of September 2002” RIIA/OERN Election Briefing No. 6. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Best, J. (2001). Damned lies and statistics. Untangling numbers from the media, politicians, and activists. London, Great Britain. University of California Press Ltd.

Betz, H.G. 1994. Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe. London: MacMillan. Bryman, A. (2002). Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder. Malmo, Sweden. Liber Ekonomi.

Cornelius, W.A. and M.R. Rosenblum (June 2005). “Immigration and Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 8. pp. 99-119.

Ekengren, Magnus and Bengt Sundelius (2000). “Sweden: The State Joins the European Union” in Hanf, K. and Soetendorp, B. (Eds.). Adapting to European Integration. Small States and the European Union. London: Longman.

Flick, U. (2006). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London, Great Britain. Sage Publications.

Green-Pedersen, Christoffer; Krogstrup, Jesper (2008). “Immigration as a political issue in Denmark and Sweden.” European Journal of Political Research. vol 47, num 5. Blackwell publishing. pp. 610-634.

Kessler AE, Freeman GP (2004). “Political opportunism, social exclusion, and support for extremist parties in Europe.” Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc., 100th, Chicago.

Kimmel, A.J (1988). Ethics and Values in Applied Social Research. London, Great Britain. Sage Publications.

Kitschelt H. 1995. The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Ann Arbor: Univ. Michigan Press.

Lipset, S.M. (1981). Political Man, 2nd. ed. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Messina, Anthony M. and Gallya Lahav (eds.). (2006). The Migration Reader: Exploring Politics and Policies. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

Nilsson, Lennart and Rudolf Antoni (eds.) (2008). Medborgarna, regionen och flernivå- demokratin. Gothenburg, Sweden: Livréna AB.

Rydgren, J. (2002). "Radical Right Populism in Sweden: Still a Failure, But For How Long?". Stockholm: Department of Sociology, Stockholm University.

Rydgren, J. (2007). "The Sociology of the Radical Right." Annual Review of Sociology, 33. Stockholm: Department of Sociology, Stockholm University.

Seale, C; Giampietro, G; Gubrium, J.F; Silverman, D. (2004). Qualitative research in practice. London, Great Britain. Sage Publications.

Silverman, D. (1995). Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London, Great Britain. Sage Publications.

Widfelt, A. (2000). ”Scandinavia: Mixed success for the populist right.” Parliamentary Affairs, vol 53, num 3. pp. 486-500.

Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research. Design and methods. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. Sage Publications.

Yin, R.K. (2003). Applications of Case Study Research. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. Sage Publications.

Internet sources http://www.malmo.se/servicemeny/malmostadinenglish.4.33aee30d103b8f15916800021923.html Malmo Stad. ”Malmo - a city in transition.” Accessed 4 March 2009 http://www.malmo.se/faktaommalmopolitik/sastyrsmalmo/kommunfullmaktige.4.33aee30d103b8 f15916800027787.html Strategic development, Malmo city (Strategisk utveckling, Malmö stad). ”Malmo Stad - Kommunfullmäktige.” Accessed 4 March 2009 http://www.som.gu.se/english.htm The SOM Institute Accessed 3 July 2009 www.socialresearchmethod.net The qualitative debate - The quantitative versus qualitative debate Accessed 23 April 2009 http://www.ssd.gu.se/en/catalogue/study/495 Southern SOM 2006 Accessed 3 July 2009 http://www.stockholm.se/usk 62

Stockholm Data Guide 2008 Accessed 14 June 2009 http://www.sverigedemokraterna.se Sverigedemokraterna: ”Presentation” Accessed 2 March 2009

APPENDIX 1

“Society Opinion Mass Media: Scania 2006” by the SOM-Institute at Gothenburg University Nilsson, Lennart and Rudolf Antoni (eds.) (2008). Medborgarna, regionen och flernivå-demokratin. Gothenburg, Sweden: Livréna AB.

13. How interested are you in political questions that concern the municipality where you live? Very interested Pretty interested Not especially interested Not at all interested

19. How do you think the government manages its tasks? Very well Pretty well Neither well nor poorly Pretty poorly Very poorly

20. On the whole, how satisfied are you with the way in which democracy works in: Very satisfied Pretty satisfied Not especially satisfied Not at all satisfied a. The EU d. The municipality where you live

21. What possibility do you think you have to influence political decisions in: Very good possibility Pretty good possibility Neither good nor bad possibility Pretty bad possibility Very bad possibility No idea a. The EU d. The municipality where you live

22. What is your opinion of Sweden’s membership in the EU? Mainly for Sweden’s membership in the EU Mainly against Sweden’s membership in the EU Have no opinion on the matter

26. How do you think that the municipal council in the municipality where you live manages its tasks? Very well Pretty well Neither well nor poorly Pretty poorly Very poorly

29. Generally speaking, how much trust do you have for the way in which the following groups manage their tasks? A lot of trust A fair amount of trust Neither a lot nor a little trust Not so much trust Very little trust No idea a. EU-parliamentarians b. Swedish parliamentarians c. The municipality’s politicians e. The municipality’s employees

30. The following list comprises a number of suggestions that have come up in the political debate. What is your opinion of each of them? Very good suggestion Pretty good suggestion Neither good nor bad suggestion Pretty bad suggestion Very bad suggestion a. Reduce the public sector b. Take in fewer refugees in Sweden e. Run more of the healthcare sector privately f. Raise municipal/regional taxes rather than reducing services j. Lower taxes m. Keep the real estate tax

36. What do you think of the economy in your municipality? Very good Pretty good Neither good nor bad Pretty bad Very bad No idea

65. People sometimes talk about Sweden having become a multicultural society. Do you think that this development has been positive or negative in the following areas: Very positive Pretty positive Neither positive nor negative Pretty negative Very negative No idea e. Languages f. Religion g. The economy h. Politics i. Crime

66. What is your opinion of each of the following statements about what prevents immigrants from integrating into Swedish society? Completely wrong statement Completely correct statement ↓ ↓ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a. Immigrants’ poor knowledge of the Swedish language is the crucial obstacle for integration b. Discrimination in the labour market is an obstacle c. The Swedes’ negative attitudes towards immigrants is an obstacle d. A lack of interest amongst the immigrants themselves prevents integration

92. How would you judge Sweden’s development in the last 5 years within the following areas: Very positive Pretty positive Neither positive nor negative Pretty negative Very negative No idea aa. The economy ab. Politics ac. People’s living conditions

And using the same scale, judge Denmark’s development in the last 5 years: Very positive Pretty positive Neither positive nor negative Pretty negative Very negative No idea ba. The economy bb. Politics bc. People’s living conditions

98. In your opinion, how have the following economic conditions changed in the last 12 months? Become better Remained about the same Gotten worse aa. Your own economic situation ab. The economy in your municipality ac. The Swedish economy

How do you think the economy will change in the coming 12 months? Become better Remain about the same Get worse ba. Your own economic situation bb. The economy in your municipality bc. The Swedish economy

99. How would you judge the possibility for today’s children and youth to be able to get in the future: Very good possibility Pretty good possibility Neither good nor bad possibility Pretty bad possibility Very bad possibility a. A good education b. A good job d. The same welfare as today

APPENDIX 2 Case Processing Summary 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Municipality Crosstabulation

Cases Municipality Valid Missing Total All other municipalities N Percent N Percent N Percent Malmo in Scania Total 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 Left Party Count 32 73 105 2537 80,7% 605 19,3% 3142 100,0% * Municipality Crosstabulation % within Municipalit/y(ies) 6,3% 3,6% 4,1%

Social Democrats Count 181 618 799 % within Municipalit/y(ies) 35,7% 30,4% 31,5%

Center Party Count 10 140 150

% within Municipalit/y(ies) 2,0% 6,9% 5,9% People’s Party Count 48 189 237

% within Municipalit/y(ies) 9,5% 9,3% 9,3%

Moderates Count 108 564 672 % within Municipalit/y(ies) 21,3% 27,8% 26,5%

Christian Democrats Count 17 86 103

% within Municipalit/y(ies) 3,4% 4,2% 4,1%

Green Party Count 36 92 128

% within Municipalit/y(ies) 7,1% 4,5% 5,0%

Health Care Party Count 1 6 7

% within Municipalit/y(ies) ,2% ,3% ,3%

Sweden Democrats Count 36 115 151

% within Municipalit/y(ies) 7,1% 5,7% 6,0%

Other party Count 27 87 114 % within Municipalit/y(ies) 5,3% 4,3% 4,5%

Blank vote Count 11 60 71

% within Municipalit/y(ies) 2,2% 3,0% 2,8% Total Count 507 2030 2537

% within Municipalit/y(ies) 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

Symmetric Measures Chi-Square Tests

Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig. Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Nominal by Nominal Phi ,131 ,000 Pearson Chi-Square 43,373a 10 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 46,948 10 ,000 Cramer's V ,131 ,000

Linear-by-Linear Association ,269 1 ,604 Contingency Coefficient ,130 ,000

c N of Valid Cases 2537 Interval by Interval Pearson's R ,010 ,021 ,519 ,604

c a. 1 cells (4.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.40. Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation ,029 ,021 1,442 ,150

N of Valid Cases 2537 a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation.

Directional Measures

Value Asymp. Std. Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric ,000 ,000 .c .c

95. Municipality Election ,000 ,000 .c .c Vote 2006 Dependent

Municipality Dependent ,000 ,000 .c .c

Goodman and Kruskal F95. 95. Municipality

tau Election Vote 2006 ,002 ,001 ,000d

Dependent

Municipality Dependent ,017 ,005 ,000d

Uncertainty Coefficient Symmetric ,008 ,002 3,634 ,000e

95. Municipality Election ,005 ,001 3,634 ,000e Vote 2006 Dependent

Municipality Dependent ,018 ,005 3,634 ,000e a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero. d. Based on chi-square approximation e. Likelihood ratio chi-square probability.

Frequencies

Statistics

95. Municipality 95. Municipality

Municipality Election Vote 2006 Election Vote 2006

N Valid 3142 2537 3142 F95. Röstade i valen 2006 - Municipalityvalet Missing 0 605 0

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid All other votes 2991 95,2 95,2 95,2 Frequency Table Sweden Democrats 151 4,8 4,8 100,0 Municipality Total 3142 100,0 100,0 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Malmo 637 20,3 20,3 20,3

All other municipalities in 2505 79,7 79,7 100,0 Scania

Total 3142 100,0 100,0

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Left Party 105 3,3 4,1 4,1

Social Democrats 799 25,4 31,5 35,6

Center Party 150 4,8 5,9 41,5

People’s Party 237 7,5 9,3 50,9

Moderates 672 21,4 26,5 77,4

Christian Democrats 103 3,3 4,1 81,4

Green Party 128 4,1 5,0 86,5

Health Care Party 7 ,2 ,3 86,8

Sweden Democrats 151 4,8 6,0 92,7

Other party 114 3,6 4,5 97,2

Blank vote 71 2,3 2,8 100,0

Total 2537 80,7 100,0

Missing System 605 19,3

Total 3142 100,0

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 367,625a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 397,488 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 66,087 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 490

a. 26 cells (47.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.

17. Political views placed on a left-right scale * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 17. Political views Clearly to the left Count 21 36 0 0 2 0 6 0 2 0 0 67

placed on a left-right % within Municipality 65,6% 20,6% ,0% ,0% 2,0% ,0% 16,7% ,0% 5,7% ,0% ,0% 13,7% scale Election Vote 2006

Somewhat to the left Count 6 71 0 1 0 1 17 1 3 3 1 104

% within Municipality 18,8% 40,6% ,0% 2,2% ,0% 5,9% 47,2% 100,0% 8,6% 11,1% 10,0% 21,2% Election Vote 2006

Neither to the left nor to Count 4 51 2 7 13 4 13 0 14 9 7 124

the right % within Municipality 12,5% 29,1% 20,0% 15,2% 12,9% 23,5% 36,1% ,0% 40,0% 33,3% 70,0% 25,3% Election Vote 2006

Somewhat to the right Count 1 14 6 26 52 9 0 0 5 10 2 125

% within Municipality 3,1% 8,0% 60,0% 56,5% 51,5% 52,9% ,0% ,0% 14,3% 37,0% 20,0% 25,5% Election Vote 2006

Clearly to the right Count 0 3 2 12 34 3 0 0 11 5 0 70

% within Municipality ,0% 1,7% 20,0% 26,1% 33,7% 17,6% ,0% ,0% 31,4% 18,5% ,0% 14,3% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 175 10 46 101 17 36 1 35 27 10 490

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006 Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 367,625a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 397,488 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 66,087 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 490

a. 26 cells (47.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.

13. How interested are you in political questions that concern the municipality where you live? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Voted blank Total 13. How interested are Malmo you in political questions Very interested Count 7 36 1 11 13 2 4 0 7 4 1 86 that concern the municipality where you % within Municipality live? 21,9% 20,5% 10,0% 23,4% 12,6% 11,8% 11,1% ,0% 19,4% 14,8% 9,1% 17,3% Election Vote 2006

Pretty interested Count 18 96 7 24 59 7 22 0 21 17 5 276

% within Municipality 56,3% 54,5% 70,0% 51,1% 57,3% 41,2% 61,1% ,0% 58,3% 63,0% 45,5% 55,6% Election Vote 2006

Not especially interested Count 6 43 1 12 25 7 9 1 8 6 3 121

% within Municipality 18,8% 24,4% 10,0% 25,5% 24,3% 41,2% 25,0% 100,0% 22,2% 22,2% 27,3% 24,4% Election Vote 2006

Not at all interested Count 1 1 1 0 6 1 1 0 0 0 2 13

% within Municipality 3,1% ,6% 10,0% ,0% 5,8% 5,9% 2,8% ,0% ,0% ,0% 18,2% 2,6% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 176 10 47 103 17 36 1 36 27 11 496

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 367,625a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 397,488 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 66,087 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 490

a. 26 cells (47.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.

19. How do you think the government manages its tasks? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 19. How do you think the Very well Count 1 2 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 10

government manages its % within Municipality 3,1% 1,2% ,0% 4,3% 4,0% 6,3% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 2,1% tasks? Election Vote 2006

Pretty well Count 4 73 6 10 30 5 6 0 2 3 0 139

% within Municipality 12,5% 42,2% 66,7% 21,3% 30,0% 31,3% 16,7% ,0% 5,9% 11,1% ,0% 28,6% Election Vote 2006

Neither well nor poorly Count 12 67 2 20 38 5 19 1 14 13 4 195

% within Municipality 37,5% 38,7% 22,2% 42,6% 38,0% 31,3% 52,8% 100,0% 41,2% 48,1% 36,4% 40,1% Election Vote 2006

Pretty poorly Count 9 24 0 7 19 5 8 0 12 8 7 99

% within Municipality 28,1% 13,9% ,0% 14,9% 19,0% 31,3% 22,2% ,0% 35,3% 29,6% 63,6% 20,4% Election Vote 2006

Very poorly Count 6 7 1 8 9 0 3 0 6 3 0 43

% within Municipality 18,8% 4,0% 11,1% 17,0% 9,0% ,0% 8,3% ,0% 17,6% 11,1% ,0% 8,8% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 173 9 47 100 16 36 1 34 27 11 486

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 367,625a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 397,488 40 ,000 Linear-by-Linear 66,087 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 490

a. 26 cells (47.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.

20a. On the whole, how satisfied are you with the way in which democracy works in the EU? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 20a. On the whole, how Very satisfied Count 1 4 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 11

satisfied are you with the % within Municipality 3,1% 2,3% ,0% 4,3% 3,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 3,8% ,0% 2,3% way in which democracy Election Vote 2006 works in the EU? Pretty satisfied Count 3 70 7 28 54 5 9 0 10 9 4 199

% within Municipality 9,4% 40,5% 70,0% 60,9% 54,5% 29,4% 25,0% ,0% 28,6% 34,6% 40,0% 41,0% Election Vote 2006

Not especially Count 20 83 3 12 32 10 20 1 15 11 4 211

satisfied % within Municipality 62,5% 48,0% 30,0% 26,1% 32,3% 58,8% 55,6% 100,0% 42,9% 42,3% 40,0% 43,5% Election Vote 2006

Not at all satisfied Count 8 16 0 4 10 2 7 0 10 5 2 64

% within Municipality 25,0% 9,2% ,0% 8,7% 10,1% 11,8% 19,4% ,0% 28,6% 19,2% 20,0% 13,2% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 173 10 46 99 17 36 1 35 26 10 485

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

a Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 367,625 40 ,000 Likelihood Ratio 397,488 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 66,087 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 490

a. 26 cells (47.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.

20d. On the whole, how satisfied are you with the way in which democracy works in the municipality where you live? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

No results Malmo 20d. On the whole, how Very satisfied Count 1 20 0 3 6 0 1 1 4 0 36

satisfied are you with the % within Municipality 3,1% 11,5% ,0% 6,4% 6,1% ,0% 2,9% 3,1% 15,4% ,0% 7,5% way in which democracy Election Vote 2006 works in the municipality No results Pretty satisfied Count 23 117 8 35 66 11 25 10 12 7 314 where you live? % within Municipality 71,9% 67,2% 88,9% 74,5% 66,7% 68,8% 71,4% 31,3% 46,2% 70,0% 65,4% Election Vote 2006

No results Not especially Count 4 32 1 6 20 5 8 13 8 1 98

satisfied % within Municipality 12,5% 18,4% 11,1% 12,8% 20,2% 31,3% 22,9% 40,6% 30,8% 10,0% 20,4% Election Vote 2006

No results Not at all satisfied Count 4 5 0 3 7 0 1 8 2 2 32

% within Municipality 12,5% 2,9% ,0% 6,4% 7,1% ,0% 2,9% 25,0% 7,7% 20,0% 6,7% Election Vote 2006

No results Total Count 32 174 9 47 99 16 35 32 26 10 480

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 367,625a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 397,488 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 66,087 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 490

a. 26 cells (47.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.

21a. What possibility do you think you have to influence political decisions in the EU? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 21a. What possibility do Very good possibility Count 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

you think you have to % within Municipality 3,1% ,0% ,0% ,0% 2,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,6% influence political Election Vote 2006 decisions in the EU? Pretty good possibility Count 1 5 1 6 3 2 2 0 0 1 0 21

% within Municipality 3,1% 2,9% 10,0% 12,8% 2,9% 11,8% 5,6% ,0% ,0% 3,7% ,0% 4,3% Election Vote 2006

Neither good nor bad Count 0 23 2 5 28 3 3 0 3 6 1 74

possibility % within Municipality ,0% 13,1% 20,0% 10,6% 27,5% 17,6% 8,3% ,0% 8,6% 22,2% 9,1% 15,0% Election Vote 2006

Pretty bad possibility Count 4 37 2 17 22 2 9 0 4 1 4 102

% within Municipality 12,5% 21,1% 20,0% 36,2% 21,6% 11,8% 25,0% ,0% 11,4% 3,7% 36,4% 20,7% Election Vote 2006

Very bad possibility Count 25 83 2 16 37 6 17 0 20 15 3 224

% within Municipality 78,1% 47,4% 20,0% 34,0% 36,3% 35,3% 47,2% ,0% 57,1% 55,6% 27,3% 45,4% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 1 27 3 3 10 4 5 1 8 4 3 69

% within Municipality 3,1% 15,4% 30,0% 6,4% 9,8% 23,5% 13,9% 100,0% 22,9% 14,8% 27,3% 14,0% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 175 10 47 102 17 36 1 35 27 11 493

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006 Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 367,625a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 397,488 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 66,087 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 490

a. 26 cells (47.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.

21d. What possibility do you think you have to influence political decisions in the municipality where you live? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 21d. What possibility do Very good possibility Count 1 0 0 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 8

you think you have to % within Municipality 3,1% ,0% ,0% 4,3% 4,0% ,0% 2,9% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 1,7% influence political Election Vote 2006 decisions in the Pretty good possibility Count 5 27 5 13 14 3 5 0 4 1 1 78 municipality where you % within Municipality live? 15,6% 15,8% 50,0% 27,7% 13,9% 18,8% 14,3% ,0% 11,8% 3,8% 9,1% 16,1% Election Vote 2006

Neither good nor bad Count 6 49 2 18 40 4 14 1 7 10 2 153

possibility % within Municipality 18,8% 28,7% 20,0% 38,3% 39,6% 25,0% 40,0% 100,0% 20,6% 38,5% 18,2% 31,6% Election Vote 2006

Pretty bad possibility Count 10 46 1 4 17 3 7 0 6 5 3 102

% within Municipality 31,3% 26,9% 10,0% 8,5% 16,8% 18,8% 20,0% ,0% 17,6% 19,2% 27,3% 21,1% Election Vote 2006

Very bad possibility Count 8 30 1 7 14 3 4 0 10 7 2 86

% within Municipality 25,0% 17,5% 10,0% 14,9% 13,9% 18,8% 11,4% ,0% 29,4% 26,9% 18,2% 17,8% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 2 19 1 3 12 3 4 0 7 3 3 57

% within Municipality 6,3% 11,1% 10,0% 6,4% 11,9% 18,8% 11,4% ,0% 20,6% 11,5% 27,3% 11,8% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 171 10 47 101 16 35 1 34 26 11 484

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006 Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 367,625a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 397,488 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 66,087 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 490

a. 26 cells (47.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.

22. What is your opinion of Sweden’s membership in the EU? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 22. What is your opinion Mainly for Sweden’s Count 11 91 7 37 77 7 17 0 14 16 5 282

of Sweden’s membership in the EU % within Municipality 34,4% 51,1% 70,0% 78,7% 75,5% 41,2% 47,2% ,0% 41,2% 59,3% 45,5% 57,0% membership in the EU? Election Vote 2006

Mainly against Sweden’s Count 18 48 1 6 14 6 14 1 15 7 3 133

membership in the EU % within Municipality 56,3% 27,0% 10,0% 12,8% 13,7% 35,3% 38,9% 100,0% 44,1% 25,9% 27,3% 26,9% Election Vote 2006

Have no opinion on the Count 3 39 2 4 11 4 5 0 5 4 3 80

matter % within Municipality 9,4% 21,9% 20,0% 8,5% 10,8% 23,5% 13,9% ,0% 14,7% 14,8% 27,3% 16,2% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 178 10 47 102 17 36 1 34 27 11 495

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 367,625a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 397,488 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 66,087 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 490

a. 26 cells (47.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 26a. How do you think Very well Count 1 15 0 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 24

that the municipal % within Municipality 3,2% 8,5% ,0% 8,3% 1,9% 6,3% 2,9% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 4,8% council in the Election Vote 2006 municipality where you Pretty well Count 8 76 4 13 21 3 8 0 5 9 0 147 live manages its tasks? % within Municipality 25,8% 42,9% 40,0% 27,1% 19,8% 18,8% 22,9% ,0% 14,3% 33,3% ,0% 29,6% Election Vote 2006

Neither well nor poorly Count 6 42 1 13 32 6 10 0 8 11 4 133

% within Municipality 19,4% 23,7% 10,0% 27,1% 30,2% 37,5% 28,6% ,0% 22,9% 40,7% 40,0% 26,8% Election Vote 2006

Pretty poorly Count 4 10 1 2 14 2 4 0 8 3 1 49

% within Municipality 12,9% 5,6% 10,0% 4,2% 13,2% 12,5% 11,4% ,0% 22,9% 11,1% 10,0% 9,9% Election Vote 2006

Very poorly Count 3 3 0 3 8 0 0 0 8 2 1 28

% within Municipality 9,7% 1,7% ,0% 6,3% 7,5% ,0% ,0% ,0% 22,9% 7,4% 10,0% 5,6% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 9 31 4 13 29 4 12 1 6 2 4 115

% within Municipality 29,0% 17,5% 40,0% 27,1% 27,4% 25,0% 34,3% 100,0% 17,1% 7,4% 40,0% 23,2% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 177 10 48 106 16 35 1 35 27 10 496

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

a Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 85,483 45 ,000 Likelihood Ratio 86,400 45 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 9,602 1 ,002 Association

N of Valid Cases 497

a. 30 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .24.

29a. Generally speaking, how much trust do you have for how this group manages its tasks – EU-parliamentarians? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 29a. Generally A lot of trust Count 0 4 0 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 12

speaking, how much % within Municipality ,0% 2,3% ,0% 8,3% 2,8% ,0% 2,8% ,0% ,0% ,0% 2,4% trust do you have for Election Vote 2006 how this group manages A fair amount of trust Count 5 29 4 12 24 1 4 4 4 1 88 its tasks – EU- % within Municipality parliamentarians? 15,6% 16,6% 40,0% 25,0% 22,4% 6,3% 11,1% 11,4% 14,8% 9,1% 17,7% Election Vote 2006

Neither a lot nor a little Count 6 60 5 20 33 3 14 8 10 1 160

trust % within Municipality 18,8% 34,3% 50,0% 41,7% 30,8% 18,8% 38,9% 22,9% 37,0% 9,1% 32,2% Election Vote 2006

Not so much trust Count 12 33 0 8 22 2 7 6 2 2 94

% within Municipality 37,5% 18,9% ,0% 16,7% 20,6% 12,5% 19,4% 17,1% 7,4% 18,2% 18,9% Election Vote 2006

Very little trust Count 5 21 1 1 7 5 4 9 0 1 54

% within Municipality 15,6% 12,0% 10,0% 2,1% 6,5% 31,3% 11,1% 25,7% ,0% 9,1% 10,9% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 4 28 0 3 18 5 6 8 11 6 89

% within Municipality 12,5% 16,0% ,0% 6,3% 16,8% 31,3% 16,7% 22,9% 40,7% 54,5% 17,9% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 175 10 48 107 16 36 35 27 11 497

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 78,294a 45 ,002

Likelihood Ratio 78,382 45 ,002

Linear-by-Linear 15,745 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 496

a. 32 cells (53.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .30.

29b. Generally speaking, how much trust do you have for how this group manages its tasks – Swedish parliamentarians? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 29b. Generally A lot of trust Count 1 6 1 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 15

speaking, how much % within Municipality 3,1% 3,4% 10,0% 8,3% 1,9% ,0% 2,9% ,0% ,0% ,0% 3,0% trust do you have for Election Vote 2006 how this group manages A fair amount of trust Count 8 45 6 17 30 4 6 6 3 0 125 its tasks – Swedish % within Municipality parliamentarians? 25,0% 25,6% 60,0% 35,4% 28,3% 25,0% 17,1% 17,1% 11,1% ,0% 25,2% Election Vote 2006

Neither a lot nor a little Count 9 61 2 15 38 3 15 6 14 1 164

trust % within Municipality 28,1% 34,7% 20,0% 31,3% 35,8% 18,8% 42,9% 17,1% 51,9% 9,1% 33,1% Election Vote 2006

Not so much trust Count 9 32 0 7 19 4 7 9 4 4 95

% within Municipality 28,1% 18,2% ,0% 14,6% 17,9% 25,0% 20,0% 25,7% 14,8% 36,4% 19,2% Election Vote 2006

Very little trust Count 2 15 1 4 6 2 2 9 0 1 42

% within Municipality 6,3% 8,5% 10,0% 8,3% 5,7% 12,5% 5,7% 25,7% ,0% 9,1% 8,5% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 3 17 0 1 11 3 4 5 6 5 55

% within Municipality 9,4% 9,7% ,0% 2,1% 10,4% 18,8% 11,4% 14,3% 22,2% 45,5% 11,1% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 176 10 48 106 16 35 35 27 11 496

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

a Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 92,226 45 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 93,749 45 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 21,092 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 497

a. 35 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .42.

29c. Generally speaking, how much trust do you have for how this group manages its tasks – the municipality’s politicians? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 29c. Generally speaking, A lot of trust Count 1 13 0 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 21

how much trust do you % within Municipality 3,1% 7,4% ,0% 8,3% 1,9% ,0% 2,9% ,0% ,0% ,0% 4,2% have for how this group Election Vote 2006 manages its tasks – the A fair amount of trust Count 8 55 5 16 24 5 6 3 6 0 128 municipality’s % within Municipality politicians? 25,0% 31,3% 50,0% 33,3% 22,4% 31,3% 17,1% 8,6% 22,2% ,0% 25,8% Election Vote 2006

Neither a lot nor a little Count 11 67 4 15 39 4 16 8 14 1 179

trust % within Municipality 34,4% 38,1% 40,0% 31,3% 36,4% 25,0% 45,7% 22,9% 51,9% 9,1% 36,0% Election Vote 2006

Not so much trust Count 5 15 1 10 19 1 7 10 5 3 76

% within Municipality 15,6% 8,5% 10,0% 20,8% 17,8% 6,3% 20,0% 28,6% 18,5% 27,3% 15,3% Election Vote 2006

Very little trust Count 3 8 0 2 11 3 1 10 1 3 42

% within Municipality 9,4% 4,5% ,0% 4,2% 10,3% 18,8% 2,9% 28,6% 3,7% 27,3% 8,5% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 4 18 0 1 12 3 4 4 1 4 51

% within Municipality 12,5% 10,2% ,0% 2,1% 11,2% 18,8% 11,4% 11,4% 3,7% 36,4% 10,3% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 176 10 48 107 16 35 35 27 11 497

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

a Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 81,873 45 ,001

Likelihood Ratio 88,688 45 ,000 Linear-by-Linear 8,485 1 ,004 Association

N of Valid Cases 495

a. 32 cells (53.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .24.

29e. Generally speaking, how much trust do you have for how this group manages its tasks – the municipality’s employees? 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 29e. Generally A lot of trust Count 0 8 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 12

speaking, how much % within Municipality ,0% 4,5% ,0% 4,2% ,0% ,0% 5,7% ,0% ,0% ,0% 2,4% trust do you have for Election Vote 2006 how this group manages A fair amount of trust Count 9 41 4 8 15 2 6 4 7 0 96 its tasks – the % within Municipality municipality’s 28,1% 23,3% 40,0% 16,7% 14,3% 12,5% 17,1% 11,4% 25,9% ,0% 19,4% Election Vote 2006 employees?

Neither a lot nor a little Count 11 72 5 21 47 5 11 8 11 2 193

trust % within Municipality 34,4% 40,9% 50,0% 43,8% 44,8% 31,3% 31,4% 22,9% 40,7% 18,2% 39,0% Election Vote 2006

Not so much trust Count 2 13 1 12 15 3 12 8 3 3 72

% within Municipality 6,3% 7,4% 10,0% 25,0% 14,3% 18,8% 34,3% 22,9% 11,1% 27,3% 14,5% Election Vote 2006

Very little trust Count 5 10 0 2 8 2 0 8 3 2 40

% within Municipality 15,6% 5,7% ,0% 4,2% 7,6% 12,5% ,0% 22,9% 11,1% 18,2% 8,1% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 5 32 0 3 20 4 4 7 3 4 82

% within Municipality 15,6% 18,2% ,0% 6,3% 19,0% 25,0% 11,4% 20,0% 11,1% 36,4% 16,6% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 176 10 48 105 16 35 35 27 11 495

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 177,916a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 190,755 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 21,736 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 490 a. 25 cells (45.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .13.

30a. Opinion of suggestions in the political debate-Reduce the public sector * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 30a. Opinion of Very good suggestion Count 2 6 4 12 24 3 2 0 5 6 0 64

suggestions in the % within Municipality 6,5% 3,5% 40,0% 25,0% 22,6% 18,8% 5,6% ,0% 14,7% 22,2% ,0% 13,1% political debate-Reduce Election Vote 2006 the public sector * 95. Pretty good suggestion Count 3 25 4 24 45 6 3 0 5 9 2 126 Municipality Election % within Municipality Vote 2006 * Malmo 9,7% 14,6% 40,0% 50,0% 42,5% 37,5% 8,3% ,0% 14,7% 33,3% 20,0% 25,7% Election Vote 2006 Crosstabulation

Neither good nor bad Count 2 37 2 5 21 6 9 0 12 7 4 105

suggestion % within Municipality 6,5% 21,6% 20,0% 10,4% 19,8% 37,5% 25,0% ,0% 35,3% 25,9% 40,0% 21,4% Election Vote 2006

Pretty bad suggestion Count 8 60 0 7 10 1 13 0 6 3 2 110

% within Municipality 25,8% 35,1% ,0% 14,6% 9,4% 6,3% 36,1% ,0% 17,6% 11,1% 20,0% 22,4% Election Vote 2006

Very bad suggestion Count 16 43 0 0 6 0 9 1 6 2 2 85

% within Municipality 51,6% 25,1% ,0% ,0% 5,7% ,0% 25,0% 100,0% 17,6% 7,4% 20,0% 17,3% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 171 10 48 106 16 36 1 34 27 10 490

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 170,371a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 163,441 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 27,722 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 498 a. 28 cells (50.9%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .10.

30b. Opinion of suggestions in the political debate-Take in fewer refugees in Sweden * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 30b. Opinion of Very good suggestion Count 5 52 1 18 42 3 4 0 32 17 3 177

suggestions in the % within Municipality 16,1% 29,4% 10,0% 37,5% 39,3% 18,8% 11,1% ,0% 91,4% 63,0% 30,0% 35,5% political debate-Take in Election Vote 2006 fewer refugees in Pretty good suggestion Count 4 35 2 11 28 6 3 1 2 6 3 101 Sweden * 95. % within Municipality Municipality Election 12,9% 19,8% 20,0% 22,9% 26,2% 37,5% 8,3% 100,0% 5,7% 22,2% 30,0% 20,3% Election Vote 2006 Vote 2006 * Malmo

Crosstabulation Neither good nor bad Count 3 46 1 13 22 4 10 0 0 2 2 103

suggestion % within Municipality 9,7% 26,0% 10,0% 27,1% 20,6% 25,0% 27,8% ,0% ,0% 7,4% 20,0% 20,7% Election Vote 2006

Pretty bad suggestion Count 5 27 5 3 14 3 11 0 0 0 1 69

% within Municipality 16,1% 15,3% 50,0% 6,3% 13,1% 18,8% 30,6% ,0% ,0% ,0% 10,0% 13,9% Election Vote 2006

Very bad suggestion Count 14 17 1 3 1 0 8 0 1 2 1 48

% within Municipality 45,2% 9,6% 10,0% 6,3% ,9% ,0% 22,2% ,0% 2,9% 7,4% 10,0% 9,6% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 177 10 48 107 16 36 1 35 27 10 498

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 255,660a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 273,383 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 32,457 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 491 a. 24 cells (43.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .12.

30e. Opinion of suggestions in the political debate-Run more of the healthcare sector privately * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 30e. Opinion of Very good suggestion Count 0 3 2 18 23 3 1 0 2 5 0 57

suggestions in the % within Municipality ,0% 1,7% 20,0% 37,5% 21,7% 20,0% 2,8% ,0% 5,7% 18,5% ,0% 11,6% political debate-Run Election Vote 2006 more of the healthcare Pretty good suggestion Count 0 16 6 13 57 3 1 0 8 7 2 113 sector privately * 95. % within Municipality Municipality Election ,0% 9,2% 60,0% 27,1% 53,8% 20,0% 2,8% ,0% 22,9% 25,9% 22,2% 23,0% Election Vote 2006 Vote 2006 * Malmo

Crosstabulation Neither good nor bad Count 6 31 0 10 15 6 12 1 12 6 4 103

suggestion % within Municipality 19,4% 17,9% ,0% 20,8% 14,2% 40,0% 33,3% 100,0% 34,3% 22,2% 44,4% 21,0% Election Vote 2006

Pretty bad suggestion Count 5 52 2 6 7 2 10 0 4 3 2 93

% within Municipality 16,1% 30,1% 20,0% 12,5% 6,6% 13,3% 27,8% ,0% 11,4% 11,1% 22,2% 18,9% Election Vote 2006

Very bad suggestion Count 20 71 0 1 4 1 12 0 9 6 1 125

% within Municipality 64,5% 41,0% ,0% 2,1% 3,8% 6,7% 33,3% ,0% 25,7% 22,2% 11,1% 25,5% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 173 10 48 106 15 36 1 35 27 9 491

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 82,525a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 84,130 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 17,860 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 483 a. 29 cells (52.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .11.

30f. Opinion of suggestions in the political debate-Raise municipal/regional taxes rather than reducing services * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 30f. Opinion of Very good suggestion Count 4 30 0 3 6 0 5 0 7 1 0 56

suggestions in the % within Municipality 13,3% 17,3% ,0% 6,3% 6,0% ,0% 14,3% ,0% 20,6% 3,7% ,0% 11,6% political debate-Raise Election Vote 2006 municipal/regional taxes % of Total ,8% 6,2% ,0% ,6% 1,2% ,0% 1,0% ,0% 1,4% ,2% ,0% 11,6% rather than reducing Pretty good suggestion Count 16 70 2 6 24 5 12 1 8 8 2 154 services * 95.

Municipality Election % within Municipality 53,3% 40,5% 22,2% 12,5% 24,0% 31,3% 34,3% 100,0% 23,5% 29,6% 20,0% 31,9% Vote 2006 * Malmo Election Vote 2006

Crosstabulation Neither good nor bad Count 6 46 3 23 32 7 9 0 7 6 4 143

suggestion % within Municipality 20,0% 26,6% 33,3% 47,9% 32,0% 43,8% 25,7% ,0% 20,6% 22,2% 40,0% 29,6% Election Vote 2006

Pretty bad suggestion Count 2 17 0 11 23 3 5 0 8 5 3 77

% within Municipality 6,7% 9,8% ,0% 22,9% 23,0% 18,8% 14,3% ,0% 23,5% 18,5% 30,0% 15,9% Election Vote 2006

Very bad suggestion Count 2 10 4 5 15 1 4 0 4 7 1 53

% within Municipality 6,7% 5,8% 44,4% 10,4% 15,0% 6,3% 11,4% ,0% 11,8% 25,9% 10,0% 11,0% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 30 173 9 48 100 16 35 1 34 27 10 483

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 96,787a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 97,876 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 19,445 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 498 a. 27 cells (49.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .06.

30j. Opinion of suggestions in the political debate-Lower taxes * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 30j. Opinion of Very good suggestion Count 4 36 2 14 40 6 6 0 11 13 4 136

suggestions in the % within Municipality 12,9% 20,2% 20,0% 29,2% 37,7% 40,0% 16,7% ,0% 31,4% 48,1% 36,4% 27,3% political debate-Lower Election Vote 2006 taxes * 95. Municipality Pretty good suggestion Count 3 34 4 18 40 3 5 0 10 7 3 127 Election Vote 2006 * % within Municipality Malmo Crosstabulation 9,7% 19,1% 40,0% 37,5% 37,7% 20,0% 13,9% ,0% 28,6% 25,9% 27,3% 25,5% Election Vote 2006

Neither good nor bad Count 9 58 3 11 18 6 12 0 7 5 3 132

suggestion % within Municipality 29,0% 32,6% 30,0% 22,9% 17,0% 40,0% 33,3% ,0% 20,0% 18,5% 27,3% 26,5% Election Vote 2006

Pretty bad suggestion Count 11 35 1 4 5 0 6 1 6 2 1 72

% within Municipality 35,5% 19,7% 10,0% 8,3% 4,7% ,0% 16,7% 100,0% 17,1% 7,4% 9,1% 14,5% Election Vote 2006

Very bad suggestion Count 4 15 0 1 3 0 7 0 1 0 0 31

% within Municipality 12,9% 8,4% ,0% 2,1% 2,8% ,0% 19,4% ,0% 2,9% ,0% ,0% 6,2% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 178 10 48 106 15 36 1 35 27 11 498

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 141,085a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 146,923 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 21,865 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 494 a. 26 cells (47.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .11.

30m. Opinion of suggestions in the political debate-Keep the real estate tax * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 30m. Opinion of Very good suggestion Count 11 22 0 3 9 1 2 0 5 1 2 56

suggestions in the % within Municipality 35,5% 12,6% ,0% 6,3% 8,4% 6,7% 5,7% ,0% 14,3% 3,7% 20,0% 11,3% political debate-Keep the Election Vote 2006 real estate tax * 95. Pretty good suggestion Count 9 39 2 1 4 3 9 0 5 1 0 73 Municipality Election % within Municipality Vote 2006 * Malmo 29,0% 22,3% 20,0% 2,1% 3,7% 20,0% 25,7% ,0% 14,3% 3,7% ,0% 14,8% Election Vote 2006 Crosstabulation

Neither good nor bad Count 7 65 1 10 25 6 21 1 6 7 4 153

suggestion % within Municipality 22,6% 37,1% 10,0% 20,8% 23,4% 40,0% 60,0% 100,0% 17,1% 25,9% 40,0% 31,0% Election Vote 2006

Pretty bad suggestion Count 2 28 5 18 29 1 2 0 6 6 2 99

% within Municipality 6,5% 16,0% 50,0% 37,5% 27,1% 6,7% 5,7% ,0% 17,1% 22,2% 20,0% 20,0% Election Vote 2006

Very bad suggestion Count 2 21 2 16 40 4 1 0 13 12 2 113

% within Municipality 6,5% 12,0% 20,0% 33,3% 37,4% 26,7% 2,9% ,0% 37,1% 44,4% 20,0% 22,9% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 175 10 48 107 15 35 1 35 27 10 494

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 367,625a 40 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 397,488 40 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 66,087 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 490

a. 26 cells (47.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.

36a. What do you think of the economy – in the municipality where you live? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 36a. What do you think Very good Count 1 9 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 14

of the economy – in the % within Municipality 3,1% 5,1% ,0% 2,1% 2,0% ,0% 2,9% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 2,8% municipality where you Election Vote 2006 live? Pretty good Count 7 58 1 12 15 2 7 0 3 7 1 113

% within Municipality 21,9% 32,6% 11,1% 25,0% 14,7% 12,5% 20,0% ,0% 8,8% 25,9% 9,1% 22,9% Election Vote 2006

Neither good nor bad Count 7 43 1 6 20 7 7 0 9 8 1 109

% within Municipality 21,9% 24,2% 11,1% 12,5% 19,6% 43,8% 20,0% ,0% 26,5% 29,6% 9,1% 22,1% Election Vote 2006

Pretty bad Count 4 18 2 7 18 3 1 0 12 5 0 70

% within Municipality 12,5% 10,1% 22,2% 14,6% 17,6% 18,8% 2,9% ,0% 35,3% 18,5% ,0% 14,2% Election Vote 2006

Very bad Count 3 3 0 2 5 0 2 0 1 2 0 18

% within Municipality 9,4% 1,7% ,0% 4,2% 4,9% ,0% 5,7% ,0% 2,9% 7,4% ,0% 3,7% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 10 47 5 20 42 4 17 1 9 5 9 169

% within Municipality 31,3% 26,4% 55,6% 41,7% 41,2% 25,0% 48,6% 100,0% 26,5% 18,5% 81,8% 34,3% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 178 9 48 102 16 35 1 34 27 11 493

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 105,229a 50 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 96,612 50 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 20,954 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 494 a. 36 cells (54.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .06.

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 65e. People sometimes Very positive Count 13 43 4 11 21 1 13 0 2 1 2 111

talk about Sweden % within Municipality 41,9% 24,4% 40,0% 23,4% 19,8% 6,7% 37,1% ,0% 5,7% 3,7% 18,2% 22,5% having become a Election Vote 2006 multicultural society. Do Pretty positive Count 5 34 2 10 17 4 5 0 2 4 0 83 you think that this % within Municipality development has been 16,1% 19,3% 20,0% 21,3% 16,0% 26,7% 14,3% ,0% 5,7% 14,8% ,0% 16,8% Election Vote 2006 positive or negative in

the area of languages? Neither positive nor Count 6 51 2 17 31 5 7 0 7 8 4 138

negative % within Municipality 19,4% 29,0% 20,0% 36,2% 29,2% 33,3% 20,0% ,0% 20,0% 29,6% 36,4% 27,9% Election Vote 2006

Pretty negative Count 2 26 2 4 18 4 3 1 8 9 2 79

% within Municipality 6,5% 14,8% 20,0% 8,5% 17,0% 26,7% 8,6% 100,0% 22,9% 33,3% 18,2% 16,0% Election Vote 2006

Very negative Count 2 10 0 2 14 1 4 0 16 2 2 53

% within Municipality 6,5% 5,7% ,0% 4,3% 13,2% 6,7% 11,4% ,0% 45,7% 7,4% 18,2% 10,7% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 3 12 0 3 5 0 3 0 0 3 1 30

% within Municipality 9,7% 6,8% ,0% 6,4% 4,7% ,0% 8,6% ,0% ,0% 11,1% 9,1% 6,1% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 176 10 47 106 15 35 1 35 27 11 494

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006 Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 115,252a 50 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 115,697 50 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 22,341 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 495 a. 39 cells (59.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .06.

65f. People sometimes talk about Sweden having become a multicultural society. Do you think that this development has been positive or negative in the area of religion? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 65f. People sometimes Very positive Count 7 19 2 3 7 1 8 0 0 0 1 48

talk about Sweden % within Municipality 22,6% 10,8% 20,0% 6,3% 6,6% 6,7% 22,9% ,0% ,0% ,0% 9,1% 9,7% having become a Election Vote 2006 multicultural society. Do Pretty positive Count 4 22 1 7 11 0 5 0 0 1 0 51 you think that this % within Municipality development has been 12,9% 12,5% 10,0% 14,6% 10,4% ,0% 14,3% ,0% ,0% 3,7% ,0% 10,3% Election Vote 2006 positive or negative in

the area of religion? Neither positive nor Count 6 58 3 13 25 5 6 0 2 5 3 126

negative % within Municipality 19,4% 33,0% 30,0% 27,1% 23,6% 33,3% 17,1% ,0% 5,7% 18,5% 27,3% 25,5% Election Vote 2006

Pretty negative Count 5 29 2 12 35 5 5 1 6 8 3 111

% within Municipality 16,1% 16,5% 20,0% 25,0% 33,0% 33,3% 14,3% 100,0% 17,1% 29,6% 27,3% 22,4% Election Vote 2006

Very negative Count 5 36 1 12 25 3 6 0 27 9 4 128

% within Municipality 16,1% 20,5% 10,0% 25,0% 23,6% 20,0% 17,1% ,0% 77,1% 33,3% 36,4% 25,9% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 4 12 1 1 3 1 5 0 0 4 0 31

% within Municipality 12,9% 6,8% 10,0% 2,1% 2,8% 6,7% 14,3% ,0% ,0% 14,8% ,0% 6,3% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 176 10 48 106 15 35 1 35 27 11 495

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 138,682a 50 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 129,196 50 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 25,215 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 496

a. 39 cells (59.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .09.

65g. People sometimes talk about Sweden having become a multicultural society. Do you think that this development has been positive or negative in the area of the economy? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 65g. People sometimes Very positive Count 9 22 2 2 4 0 6 0 0 1 2 48

talk about Sweden % within Municipality 29,0% 12,4% 20,0% 4,2% 3,8% ,0% 17,1% ,0% ,0% 3,7% 18,2% 9,7% having become a Election Vote 2006 multicultural society. Do Pretty positive Count 3 27 1 6 18 1 3 0 1 3 0 63 you think that this % within Municipality development has been 9,7% 15,3% 10,0% 12,5% 17,0% 6,7% 8,6% ,0% 2,9% 11,1% ,0% 12,7% Election Vote 2006 positive or negative in

the area of the Neither positive nor Count 10 55 4 21 30 7 11 0 6 7 3 154

negative economy? % within Municipality 32,3% 31,1% 40,0% 43,8% 28,3% 46,7% 31,4% ,0% 17,1% 25,9% 27,3% 31,0% Election Vote 2006

Pretty negative Count 5 36 2 15 25 4 5 0 7 5 0 104

% within Municipality 16,1% 20,3% 20,0% 31,3% 23,6% 26,7% 14,3% ,0% 20,0% 18,5% ,0% 21,0% Election Vote 2006

Very negative Count 2 21 0 3 21 3 1 0 21 7 3 82

% within Municipality 6,5% 11,9% ,0% 6,3% 19,8% 20,0% 2,9% ,0% 60,0% 25,9% 27,3% 16,5% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 2 16 1 1 8 0 9 1 0 4 3 45

% within Municipality 6,5% 9,0% 10,0% 2,1% 7,5% ,0% 25,7% 100,0% ,0% 14,8% 27,3% 9,1% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 177 10 48 106 15 35 1 35 27 11 496

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 145,016a 50 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 129,881 50 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 32,077 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 496

a. 39 cells (59.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .10.

65h. People sometimes talk about Sweden having become a multicultural society. Do you think that this development has been positive or negative in the area of politics? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 65h. People sometimes Very positive Count 11 20 2 4 6 1 7 0 0 1 0 52

talk about Sweden % within Municipality 35,5% 11,3% 20,0% 8,3% 5,7% 6,7% 20,0% ,0% ,0% 3,7% ,0% 10,5% having become a Election Vote 2006 multicultural society. Do Pretty positive Count 1 36 2 5 16 2 4 0 0 1 3 70 you think that this % within Municipality development has been 3,2% 20,3% 20,0% 10,4% 15,1% 13,3% 11,4% ,0% ,0% 3,7% 27,3% 14,1% Election Vote 2006 positive or negative in

the area of politics? Neither positive nor Count 12 63 5 18 40 7 10 0 8 7 3 173

negative % within Municipality 38,7% 35,6% 50,0% 37,5% 37,7% 46,7% 28,6% ,0% 22,9% 25,9% 27,3% 34,9% Election Vote 2006

Pretty negative Count 3 20 1 13 18 3 6 0 6 6 0 76

% within Municipality 9,7% 11,3% 10,0% 27,1% 17,0% 20,0% 17,1% ,0% 17,1% 22,2% ,0% 15,3% Election Vote 2006

Very negative Count 2 20 0 5 16 2 1 0 20 5 1 72

% within Municipality 6,5% 11,3% ,0% 10,4% 15,1% 13,3% 2,9% ,0% 57,1% 18,5% 9,1% 14,5% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 2 18 0 3 10 0 7 1 1 7 4 53

% within Municipality 6,5% 10,2% ,0% 6,3% 9,4% ,0% 20,0% 100,0% 2,9% 25,9% 36,4% 10,7% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 177 10 48 106 15 35 1 35 27 11 496

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 104,162a 50 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 118,086 50 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 10,803 1 ,001 Association

N of Valid Cases 496

a. 45 cells (68.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

65i. People sometimes talk about Sweden having become a multicultural society. Do you think that this development has been positive or negative in the area of crime? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 65i. People sometimes Very positive Count 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 7

talk about Sweden % within Municipality 6,5% 1,1% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 5,7% ,0% ,0% 3,7% ,0% 1,4% having become a Election Vote 2006 multicultural society. Do Pretty positive Count 2 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 11 you think that this % within Municipality development has been 6,5% 4,0% ,0% ,0% ,9% 6,7% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 2,2% Election Vote 2006 positive or negative in

the area of crime? Neither positive nor Count 10 22 3 7 15 2 11 0 0 0 0 70

negative % within Municipality 32,3% 12,5% 30,0% 14,6% 14,0% 13,3% 31,4% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 14,1% Election Vote 2006

Pretty negative Count 5 51 4 19 33 4 10 0 1 7 3 137

% within Municipality 16,1% 29,0% 40,0% 39,6% 30,8% 26,7% 28,6% ,0% 2,9% 25,9% 27,3% 27,6% Election Vote 2006

Very negative Count 8 83 2 22 54 8 12 1 34 17 7 248

% within Municipality 25,8% 47,2% 20,0% 45,8% 50,5% 53,3% 34,3% 100,0% 97,1% 63,0% 63,6% 50,0% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 4 11 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 1 23

% within Municipality 12,9% 6,3% 10,0% ,0% 3,7% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 7,4% 9,1% 4,6% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 176 10 48 107 15 35 1 35 27 11 496

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

66a. Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 123,932a 100 ,053

Likelihood Ratio 130,116 100 ,023

Linear-by-Linear 9,191 1 ,002 Association

N of Valid Cases 495

a. 94 cells (77.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

66b. Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 149,579a 100 ,001

Likelihood Ratio 129,876 100 ,024

Linear-by-Linear 19,436 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 496 a. 89 cells (73.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

66c. Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 154,459a 100 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 157,555 100 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 21,676 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 494 a. 91 cells (75.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .02.

66d. Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 148,283a 100 ,001

Likelihood Ratio 155,077 100 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 17,706 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 493 a. 90 cells (74.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .02.

66a. What prevents immigrants from integrating into Swedish society- immigrants’ poor knowledge of the Swedish language is the crucial obstacle for integration? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 66a. What prevents Completely wrong Count 4 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 16

immigrants from integrating statement (0) %* 12,9% 4,6% ,0% ,0% ,9% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 7,4% 10,0% 3,2% into Swedish society- (1) Count 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 immigrants’ poor knowledge

of the Swedish language is %* 6,5% 1,7% ,0% 2,1% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 1,2%

the crucial obstacle for (2) Count 3 6 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 14 integration? %* 9,7% 3,4% ,0% ,0% ,9% 6,3% 2,8% ,0% 5,7% ,0% ,0% 2,8%

(3) Count 2 8 1 1 2 2 4 0 1 0 0 21

%* 6,5% 4,6% 10,0% 2,1% 1,9% 12,5% 11,1% ,0% 2,9% ,0% ,0% 4,2%

(4) Count 1 5 1 3 3 1 2 0 3 0 1 20

%* 3,2% 2,9% 10,0% 6,4% 2,8% 6,3% 5,6% ,0% 8,6% ,0% 10,0% 4,0%

(5) Count 5 16 0 4 10 3 5 0 0 2 0 45

%* 16,1% 9,1% ,0% 8,5% 9,3% 18,8% 13,9% ,0% ,0% 7,4% ,0% 9,1%

(6) Count 0 9 1 6 5 1 3 0 0 1 1 27

%* ,0% 5,1% 10,0% 12,8% 4,7% 6,3% 8,3% ,0% ,0% 3,7% 10,0% 5,5%

(7) Count 2 33 1 5 15 2 7 0 5 3 0 73

%* 6,5% 18,9% 10,0% 10,6% 14,0% 12,5% 19,4% ,0% 14,3% 11,1% ,0% 14,7%

(8) Count 2 33 4 11 20 1 8 1 3 6 2 91

%* 6,5% 18,9% 40,0% 23,4% 18,7% 6,3% 22,2% 100,0% 8,6% 22,2% 20,0% 18,4%

(9) Count 1 9 0 3 11 1 1 0 2 5 2 35

%* 3,2% 5,1% ,0% 6,4% 10,3% 6,3% 2,8% ,0% 5,7% 18,5% 20,0% 7,1%

Completely correct Count 9 45 2 13 39 4 5 0 19 8 3 147

statement (10) %* 29,0% 25,7% 20,0% 27,7% 36,4% 25,0% 13,9% ,0% 54,3% 29,6% 30,0% 29,7%

Total Count 31 175 10 47 107 16 36 1 35 27 10 495

%* 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

*The percentage is within the Malmo Municipality Election Vote of 2006.

66b. What prevents immigrants from integrating into Swedish society- discrimination in the labor market is an obstacle? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 66b. What prevents Completely wrong Count 0 6 0 1 3 0 0 0 8 2 0 20

immigrants from statement (0) %* ,0% 3,4% ,0% 2,1% 2,8% ,0% ,0% ,0% 22,9% 7,4% ,0% 4,0% integrating into Swedish (1) Count 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 society- discrimination in %* ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,9% ,0% ,0% ,0% 2,9% ,0% 9,1% ,6% the labor market is an

obstacle? (2) Count 0 6 0 2 6 1 0 0 5 3 0 23

%* ,0% 3,4% ,0% 4,2% 5,6% 6,7% ,0% ,0% 14,3% 11,1% ,0% 4,6%

(3) Count 1 11 0 2 5 2 0 0 1 2 0 24

%* 3,2% 6,3% ,0% 4,2% 4,7% 13,3% ,0% ,0% 2,9% 7,4% ,0% 4,8%

(4) Count 3 7 0 3 7 0 2 1 1 1 1 26

%* 9,7% 4,0% ,0% 6,3% 6,5% ,0% 5,6% 100,0% 2,9% 3,7% 9,1% 5,2%

(5) Count 3 24 1 7 15 5 5 0 5 6 3 74

%* 9,7% 13,7% 10,0% 14,6% 14,0% 33,3% 13,9% ,0% 14,3% 22,2% 27,3% 14,9%

(6) Count 0 10 1 6 12 1 6 0 3 0 0 39

%* ,0% 5,7% 10,0% 12,5% 11,2% 6,7% 16,7% ,0% 8,6% ,0% ,0% 7,9%

(7) Count 2 29 2 8 18 0 3 0 6 2 2 72

%* 6,5% 16,6% 20,0% 16,7% 16,8% ,0% 8,3% ,0% 17,1% 7,4% 18,2% 14,5%

(8) Count 5 26 3 6 14 3 6 0 4 3 1 71

%* 16,1% 14,9% 30,0% 12,5% 13,1% 20,0% 16,7% ,0% 11,4% 11,1% 9,1% 14,3%

(9) Count 4 15 1 4 6 1 6 0 0 3 1 41

%* 12,9% 8,6% 10,0% 8,3% 5,6% 6,7% 16,7% ,0% ,0% 11,1% 9,1% 8,3%

Completely correct Count 13 41 2 9 20 2 8 0 1 5 2 103

statement (10) %* 41,9% 23,4% 20,0% 18,8% 18,7% 13,3% 22,2% ,0% 2,9% 18,5% 18,2% 20,8%

Total Count 31 175 10 48 107 15 36 1 35 27 11 496

%* 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

*The percentage is within the Malmo Municipality Election Vote of 2006.

66c. What prevents immigrants from integrating into Swedish society- the Swedes’ negative attitudes towards immigrants is an obstacle? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 66c. What prevents Completely wrong Count 2 8 0 3 5 0 0 0 9 3 0 30

immigrants from statement (0) %* 6,5% 4,6% ,0% 6,3% 4,7% ,0% ,0% ,0% 25,7% 11,1% ,0% 6,1% integrating into Swedish (1) Count 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 2 1 0 11 society- the Swedes’ %* ,0% 1,2% ,0% 4,2% 3,7% ,0% ,0% ,0% 5,7% 3,7% ,0% 2,2% negative attitude

towards immigrants is (2) Count 0 9 0 0 7 0 1 0 3 2 1 23

an obstacle? %* ,0% 5,2% ,0% ,0% 6,5% ,0% 2,8% ,0% 8,6% 7,4% 9,1% 4,7%

(3) Count 1 10 1 2 2 0 2 0 4 1 0 23

%* 3,2% 5,8% 10,0% 4,2% 1,9% ,0% 5,6% ,0% 11,4% 3,7% ,0% 4,7%

(4) Count 2 6 0 5 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 18

%* 6,5% 3,5% ,0% 10,4% 2,8% ,0% 5,6% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 3,6%

(5) Count 4 16 0 9 17 4 4 1 5 10 6 76

%* 12,9% 9,2% ,0% 18,8% 15,9% 26,7% 11,1% 100,0% 14,3% 37,0% 54,5% 15,4%

(6) Count 1 20 1 6 19 5 6 0 4 1 0 63

%* 3,2% 11,6% 10,0% 12,5% 17,8% 33,3% 16,7% ,0% 11,4% 3,7% ,0% 12,8%

(7) Count 4 22 2 7 20 2 5 0 6 2 2 72

%* 12,9% 12,7% 20,0% 14,6% 18,7% 13,3% 13,9% ,0% 17,1% 7,4% 18,2% 14,6%

(8) Count 2 36 4 7 13 2 7 0 0 2 1 74

%* 6,5% 20,8% 40,0% 14,6% 12,1% 13,3% 19,4% ,0% ,0% 7,4% 9,1% 15,0%

(9) Count 3 10 0 4 4 0 2 0 0 2 0 25

%* 9,7% 5,8% ,0% 8,3% 3,7% ,0% 5,6% ,0% ,0% 7,4% ,0% 5,1%

Completely correct Count 12 34 2 3 13 2 7 0 2 3 1 79

statement (10) %* 38,7% 19,7% 20,0% 6,3% 12,1% 13,3% 19,4% ,0% 5,7% 11,1% 9,1% 16,0%

Total Count 31 173 10 48 107 15 36 1 35 27 11 494

%* 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

*The percentage is within the Malmo Municipality Election Vote of 2006.

66d. What prevents immigrants from integrating into Swedish society- a lack of interest amongst the immigrants themselves prevents integration? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 66d. What prevents Completely wrong Count 6 11 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 25

immigrants from statement (0) %* 19,4% 6,4% 20,0% ,0% ,9% ,0% 5,6% ,0% ,0% 7,4% 9,1% 5,1% integrating into Swedish (1) Count 3 3 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 12 society- a lack of interest %* 9,7% 1,7% ,0% 4,2% 1,9% ,0% 5,6% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 2,4% amongst the immigrants

themselves prevents (2) Count 2 15 1 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 26

integration? %* 6,5% 8,7% 10,0% 8,3% ,9% ,0% 8,3% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 5,3%

(3) Count 1 9 0 3 7 1 1 0 0 1 0 23

%* 3,2% 5,2% ,0% 6,3% 6,5% 6,7% 2,8% ,0% ,0% 3,7% ,0% 4,7%

(4) Count 1 9 1 6 6 1 1 0 1 0 1 27

%* 3,2% 5,2% 10,0% 12,5% 5,6% 6,7% 2,8% ,0% 2,9% ,0% 9,1% 5,5%

(5) Count 5 25 2 8 9 4 9 0 3 5 4 74

%* 16,1% 14,5% 20,0% 16,7% 8,4% 26,7% 25,0% ,0% 8,6% 18,5% 36,4% 15,0%

(6) Count 1 12 2 3 10 0 3 0 1 2 1 35

%* 3,2% 7,0% 20,0% 6,3% 9,3% ,0% 8,3% ,0% 2,9% 7,4% 9,1% 7,1%

(7) Count 5 19 1 8 19 1 3 0 2 2 2 62

%* 16,1% 11,0% 10,0% 16,7% 17,8% 6,7% 8,3% ,0% 5,7% 7,4% 18,2% 12,6%

(8) Count 4 27 1 7 12 1 7 1 6 6 1 73

%* 12,9% 15,7% 10,0% 14,6% 11,2% 6,7% 19,4% 100,0% 17,1% 22,2% 9,1% 14,8%

(9) Count 0 8 0 1 11 4 3 0 5 0 0 32

%* ,0% 4,7% ,0% 2,1% 10,3% 26,7% 8,3% ,0% 14,3% ,0% ,0% 6,5%

Completely correct Count 3 34 0 6 29 3 2 0 17 9 1 104

statement (10) %* 9,7% 19,8% ,0% 12,5% 27,1% 20,0% 5,6% ,0% 48,6% 33,3% 9,1% 21,1%

Total Count 31 172 10 48 107 15 36 1 35 27 11 493

%* 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

*The percentage is within the Malmo Municipality Election Vote of 2006.

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 71,427a 50 ,025

Likelihood Ratio 73,718 50 ,016

Linear-by-Linear 2,194 1 ,139 Association

N of Valid Cases 503

a. 42 cells (63.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03.

92aa. Development in Sweden in the last 5 years within – the economy * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 92aa. Development in Very positive Count 5 18 0 3 7 2 1 0 5 2 0 43

Sweden in the last 5 % within Municipality 15,6% 10,2% ,0% 6,3% 6,5% 11,8% 2,8% ,0% 13,9% 7,4% ,0% 8,5% years within – the Election Vote 2006

economy Pretty positive Count 10 96 6 26 58 4 17 0 13 15 3 248

% within Municipality 31,3% 54,2% 60,0% 54,2% 53,7% 23,5% 47,2% ,0% 36,1% 55,6% 27,3% 49,3% Election Vote 2006

Neither positive nor Count 4 38 4 8 15 9 6 1 10 4 5 104

negative % within Municipality 12,5% 21,5% 40,0% 16,7% 13,9% 52,9% 16,7% 100,0% 27,8% 14,8% 45,5% 20,7% Election Vote 2006

Pretty negative Count 10 10 0 8 17 2 9 0 4 4 2 66

% within Municipality 31,3% 5,6% ,0% 16,7% 15,7% 11,8% 25,0% ,0% 11,1% 14,8% 18,2% 13,1% Election Vote 2006

Very negative Count 2 4 0 0 6 0 1 0 1 1 0 15

% within Municipality 6,3% 2,3% ,0% ,0% 5,6% ,0% 2,8% ,0% 2,8% 3,7% ,0% 3,0% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 1 11 0 3 5 0 2 0 3 1 1 27

% within Municipality 3,1% 6,2% ,0% 6,3% 4,6% ,0% 5,6% ,0% 8,3% 3,7% 9,1% 5,4% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 177 10 48 108 17 36 1 36 27 11 503

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-

Municipality Value df sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 76,841a 50 ,009

Likelihood Ratio 81,188 50 ,003

Linear-by-Linear 4,801 1 ,028 Association

N of Valid Cases 501 a. 40 cells (60.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03.

92ab. Development in Sweden in the last 5 years within - politics * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 92ab. Development in Very positive Count 0 5 0 1 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 13

Sweden in the last 5 % within Municipality ,0% 2,8% ,0% 2,1% 4,6% 6,3% ,0% ,0% 2,8% ,0% ,0% 2,6% years within - politics Election Vote 2006

Pretty positive Count 2 50 4 12 24 1 7 0 5 4 2 111

% within Municipality 6,3% 28,4% 40,0% 25,0% 22,2% 6,3% 19,4% ,0% 13,9% 14,8% 18,2% 22,2% Election Vote 2006

Neither positive nor Count 12 77 2 13 29 7 11 0 10 11 3 175

negative % within Municipality 37,5% 43,8% 20,0% 27,1% 26,9% 43,8% 30,6% ,0% 27,8% 40,7% 27,3% 34,9% Election Vote 2006

Pretty negative Count 8 22 3 16 30 7 16 1 10 8 4 125

% within Municipality 25,0% 12,5% 30,0% 33,3% 27,8% 43,8% 44,4% 100,0% 27,8% 29,6% 36,4% 25,0% Election Vote 2006

Very negative Count 8 10 0 3 12 0 1 0 8 2 1 45

% within Municipality 25,0% 5,7% ,0% 6,3% 11,1% ,0% 2,8% ,0% 22,2% 7,4% 9,1% 9,0% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 2 12 1 3 8 0 1 0 2 2 1 32

% within Municipality 6,3% 6,8% 10,0% 6,3% 7,4% ,0% 2,8% ,0% 5,6% 7,4% 9,1% 6,4% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 176 10 48 108 16 36 1 36 27 11 501

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 48,809a 50 ,521

Likelihood Ratio 50,024 50 ,472

Linear-by-Linear 2,890 1 ,089 Association

N of Valid Cases 503 a. 41 cells (62.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .02.

92ac. Development in Sweden in the last 5 years within – people’s living conditions * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 92ac. Development in Very positive Count 0 6 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 10

Sweden in the last 5 % within Municipality ,0% 3,4% ,0% 2,1% ,9% 6,3% ,0% ,0% 2,8% ,0% ,0% 2,0% years within – people’s Election Vote 2006

living conditions Pretty positive Count 11 65 5 19 44 2 13 0 11 11 3 184

% within Municipality 34,4% 36,5% 50,0% 39,6% 40,7% 12,5% 36,1% ,0% 30,6% 40,7% 27,3% 36,6% Election Vote 2006

Neither positive nor Count 9 73 2 17 37 11 11 1 9 10 2 182

negative % within Municipality 28,1% 41,0% 20,0% 35,4% 34,3% 68,8% 30,6% 100,0% 25,0% 37,0% 18,2% 36,2% Election Vote 2006

Pretty negative Count 9 19 2 6 20 1 8 0 9 3 4 81

% within Municipality 28,1% 10,7% 20,0% 12,5% 18,5% 6,3% 22,2% ,0% 25,0% 11,1% 36,4% 16,1% Election Vote 2006

Very negative Count 2 4 1 2 2 1 2 0 4 1 1 20

% within Municipality 6,3% 2,2% 10,0% 4,2% 1,9% 6,3% 5,6% ,0% 11,1% 3,7% 9,1% 4,0% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 1 11 0 3 4 0 2 0 2 2 1 26

% within Municipality 3,1% 6,2% ,0% 6,3% 3,7% ,0% 5,6% ,0% 5,6% 7,4% 9,1% 5,2% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 178 10 48 108 16 36 1 36 27 11 503

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 96,672a 50 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 74,209 50 ,015

Linear-by-Linear ,011 1 ,917 Association

N of Valid Cases 502 a. 42 cells (63.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

92ba. Development in Denmark in the last 5 years within – the economy * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 92ba. Development in Very positive Count 3 35 1 12 29 3 2 0 10 8 0 103

Denmark in the last 5 % within Municipality 9,7% 19,7% 10,0% 25,0% 26,9% 17,6% 5,6% ,0% 28,6% 29,6% ,0% 20,5% years within – the Election Vote 2006

economy Pretty positive Count 11 41 3 14 31 3 6 0 10 7 3 129

% within Municipality 35,5% 23,0% 30,0% 29,2% 28,7% 17,6% 16,7% ,0% 28,6% 25,9% 27,3% 25,7% Election Vote 2006

Neither positive nor Count 2 23 2 3 4 7 1 0 3 3 1 49

negative % within Municipality 6,5% 12,9% 20,0% 6,3% 3,7% 41,2% 2,8% ,0% 8,6% 11,1% 9,1% 9,8% Election Vote 2006

Pretty negative Count 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

% within Municipality 6,5% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,9% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,6% Election Vote 2006

Very negative Count 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

% within Municipality 3,2% ,6% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 9,1% ,6% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 12 78 4 19 43 4 27 1 12 9 6 215

% within Municipality 38,7% 43,8% 40,0% 39,6% 39,8% 23,5% 75,0% 100,0% 34,3% 33,3% 54,5% 42,8% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 178 10 48 108 17 36 1 35 27 11 502

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 116,531a 50 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 121,004 50 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 2,583 1 ,108 Association

N of Valid Cases 502 a. 40 cells (60.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .07.

92bb. Development in Denmark in the last 5 years within – politics * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 92bb. Development in Very positive Count 0 9 1 3 10 1 0 0 8 1 1 34

Denmark in the last 5 % within Municipality ,0% 5,1% 10,0% 6,3% 9,3% 5,9% ,0% ,0% 22,9% 3,7% 9,1% 6,8% years within – politics Election Vote 2006

Pretty positive Count 2 21 1 9 22 1 0 0 12 7 2 77

% within Municipality 6,5% 11,8% 10,0% 18,8% 20,4% 5,9% ,0% ,0% 34,3% 25,9% 18,2% 15,3% Election Vote 2006

Neither positive nor Count 3 38 0 7 17 7 2 0 4 2 1 81

negative % within Municipality 9,7% 21,3% ,0% 14,6% 15,7% 41,2% 5,6% ,0% 11,4% 7,4% 9,1% 16,1% Election Vote 2006

Pretty negative Count 6 18 2 7 9 2 5 0 1 5 0 55

% within Municipality 19,4% 10,1% 20,0% 14,6% 8,3% 11,8% 13,9% ,0% 2,9% 18,5% ,0% 11,0% Election Vote 2006

Very negative Count 11 21 2 2 4 0 6 0 0 0 2 48

% within Municipality 35,5% 11,8% 20,0% 4,2% 3,7% ,0% 16,7% ,0% ,0% ,0% 18,2% 9,6% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 9 71 4 20 46 6 23 1 10 12 5 207

% within Municipality 29,0% 39,9% 40,0% 41,7% 42,6% 35,3% 63,9% 100,0% 28,6% 44,4% 45,5% 41,2% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 178 10 48 108 17 36 1 35 27 11 502

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 76,551a 50 ,009

Likelihood Ratio 79,257 50 ,005

Linear-by-Linear ,143 1 ,705 Association

N of Valid Cases 503 a. 42 cells (63.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .02.

92bc. Development in Denmark in the last 5 years within – people’s living conditions * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 92bc. Development in Very positive Count 0 9 0 3 12 1 0 0 5 1 0 31

Denmark in the last 5 % within Municipality ,0% 5,0% ,0% 6,3% 11,1% 5,9% ,0% ,0% 14,3% 3,7% ,0% 6,2% years within – people’s Election Vote 2006

living conditions Pretty positive Count 5 39 2 16 33 4 3 0 13 8 3 126

% within Municipality 16,1% 21,8% 20,0% 33,3% 30,6% 23,5% 8,3% ,0% 37,1% 29,6% 27,3% 25,0% Election Vote 2006

Neither positive nor Count 7 36 3 9 13 6 3 0 6 3 1 87

negative % within Municipality 22,6% 20,1% 30,0% 18,8% 12,0% 35,3% 8,3% ,0% 17,1% 11,1% 9,1% 17,3% Election Vote 2006

Pretty negative Count 5 8 0 1 3 1 4 0 0 1 0 23

% within Municipality 16,1% 4,5% ,0% 2,1% 2,8% 5,9% 11,1% ,0% ,0% 3,7% ,0% 4,6% Election Vote 2006

Very negative Count 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8

% within Municipality 6,5% 2,8% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 9,1% 1,6% Election Vote 2006

No idea Count 12 82 5 19 47 5 26 1 11 14 6 228

% within Municipality 38,7% 45,8% 50,0% 39,6% 43,5% 29,4% 72,2% 100,0% 31,4% 51,9% 54,5% 45,3% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 179 10 48 108 17 36 1 35 27 11 503

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 36,434a 20 ,014

Likelihood Ratio 36,933 20 ,012

Linear-by-Linear ,288 1 ,592 Association

N of Valid Cases 504

a. 10 cells (30.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .17.

98aa. In your opinion, has the economic condition changed in the last 12 months in – your own economic situation? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 98aa. In your opinion, Become better Count 7 39 3 12 41 4 11 1 15 2 3 138

has the economic % within Municipality 21,9% 21,8% 30,0% 25,0% 38,0% 25,0% 30,6% 100,0% 41,7% 7,4% 27,3% 27,4% condition changed in the Election Vote 2006 last 12 months in – your Remained about the Count 17 111 4 32 56 7 15 0 16 19 5 282 own economic situation? same % within Municipality 53,1% 62,0% 40,0% 66,7% 51,9% 43,8% 41,7% ,0% 44,4% 70,4% 45,5% 56,0% Election Vote 2006

Gotten worse Count 8 29 3 4 11 5 10 0 5 6 3 84

% within Municipality 25,0% 16,2% 30,0% 8,3% 10,2% 31,3% 27,8% ,0% 13,9% 22,2% 27,3% 16,7% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 179 10 48 108 16 36 1 36 27 11 504

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

a Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 37,216 20 ,011

Likelihood Ratio 45,275 20 ,001

Linear-by-Linear 15,228 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 491 a. 18 cells (54.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .10.

98ab. In your opinion, has the economic condition changed in the last 12 months in – the economy in your municipality? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 98ab. In your opinion, Become better Count 3 27 0 9 5 0 4 0 0 0 2 50

has the economic % within Municipality 9,4% 15,7% ,0% 19,1% 4,8% ,0% 11,4% ,0% ,0% ,0% 18,2% 10,2% condition changed in the Election Vote 2006 last 12 months in – the Remained about the Count 25 128 9 35 86 13 25 1 28 22 5 377 economy in your same % within Municipality municipality? 78,1% 74,4% 100,0% 74,5% 81,9% 81,3% 71,4% 100,0% 77,8% 81,5% 45,5% 76,8% Election Vote 2006

Gotten worse Count 4 17 0 3 14 3 6 0 8 5 4 64

% within Municipality 12,5% 9,9% ,0% 6,4% 13,3% 18,8% 17,1% ,0% 22,2% 18,5% 36,4% 13,0% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 172 9 47 105 16 35 1 36 27 11 491

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 24,276a 20 ,231

Likelihood Ratio 25,600 20 ,179

Linear-by-Linear 6,752 1 ,009 Association

N of Valid Cases 493

a. 13 cells (39.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.

98ac. In your opinion, has the economic condition changed in the last 12 months in – the Swedish economy? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 98ac. In your opinion, Become better Count 7 60 3 16 28 3 12 0 5 9 1 144

has the economic % within Municipality 21,9% 35,1% 33,3% 33,3% 26,4% 18,8% 33,3% ,0% 13,9% 33,3% 9,1% 29,2% condition changed in the Election Vote 2006 last 12 months in – the Remained about the Count 20 91 6 25 67 12 18 1 23 12 6 281 Swedish economy? same % within Municipality 62,5% 53,2% 66,7% 52,1% 63,2% 75,0% 50,0% 100,0% 63,9% 44,4% 54,5% 57,0% Election Vote 2006

Gotten worse Count 5 20 0 7 11 1 6 0 8 6 4 68

% within Municipality 15,6% 11,7% ,0% 14,6% 10,4% 6,3% 16,7% ,0% 22,2% 22,2% 36,4% 13,8% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 171 9 48 106 16 36 1 36 27 11 493

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

a Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 73,886 20 ,000 Likelihood Ratio 71,533 20 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 6,851 1 ,009 Association

N of Valid Cases 502

a. 9 cells (27.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .17.

98ba. How do you think the economic condition will change in the coming 12 months in – your own economic situation? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 98ba. How do you think Become better Count 8 27 5 17 54 3 14 1 11 6 3 149

the economic condition % within Municipality 25,0% 15,3% 50,0% 35,4% 50,0% 17,6% 38,9% 100,0% 30,6% 23,1% 27,3% 29,7% will change in the Election Vote 2006 coming 12 months in – Remain about the same Count 10 118 4 27 45 11 12 0 20 15 7 269 your own economic % within Municipality situation? 31,3% 66,7% 40,0% 56,3% 41,7% 64,7% 33,3% ,0% 55,6% 57,7% 63,6% 53,6% Election Vote 2006

Get worse Count 14 32 1 4 9 3 10 0 5 5 1 84

% within Municipality 43,8% 18,1% 10,0% 8,3% 8,3% 17,6% 27,8% ,0% 13,9% 19,2% 9,1% 16,7% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 177 10 48 108 17 36 1 36 26 11 502

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 49,762a 18 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 49,080 18 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 1,449 1 ,229 Association

N of Valid Cases 490

a. 8 cells (26.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.45.

98bb. How do you think the economic condition will change in the coming 12 months in – the economy in your municipality? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 98bb. How do you think Become better Count 2 14 2 12 26 3 4 4 2 2 71

the economic condition % within Municipality 6,3% 8,3% 20,0% 25,0% 24,5% 17,6% 11,4% 11,1% 7,7% 18,2% 14,5% will change in the Election Vote 2006 coming 12 months in – Remain about the same Count 14 118 8 30 69 13 22 21 18 7 320 the economy in your % within Municipality municipality? 43,8% 69,8% 80,0% 62,5% 65,1% 76,5% 62,9% 58,3% 69,2% 63,6% 65,3% Election Vote 2006

Get worse Count 16 37 0 6 11 1 9 11 6 2 99

% within Municipality 50,0% 21,9% ,0% 12,5% 10,4% 5,9% 25,7% 30,6% 23,1% 18,2% 20,2% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 169 10 48 106 17 35 36 26 11 490

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 113,230a 18 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 119,270 18 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 15,297 1 ,000 Association

N of Valid Cases 491

a. 7 cells (23.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.51.

98bc. How do you think the economic condition will change in the coming 12 months in – the Swedish economy? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 98bc. How do you think Become better Count 1 18 7 19 46 8 5 9 7 3 123

the economic condition % within Municipality 3,1% 10,7% 70,0% 39,6% 43,4% 47,1% 13,9% 25,0% 26,9% 27,3% 25,1% will change in the Election Vote 2006 coming 12 months in – Remain about the same Count 8 93 3 22 51 9 17 15 14 6 238 the Swedish economy? % within Municipality 25,0% 55,0% 30,0% 45,8% 48,1% 52,9% 47,2% 41,7% 53,8% 54,5% 48,5% Election Vote 2006

Get worse Count 23 58 0 7 9 0 14 12 5 2 130

% within Municipality 71,9% 34,3% ,0% 14,6% 8,5% ,0% 38,9% 33,3% 19,2% 18,2% 26,5% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 169 10 48 106 17 36 36 26 11 491

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

a Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 28,368 40 ,916 Likelihood Ratio 29,606 40 ,886

Linear-by-Linear ,604 1 ,437 Association

N of Valid Cases 504

a. 33 cells (60.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

99a. How would you judge the possibility for today’s children and youth to be able to get in the future – a good education? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 99a. How would you Very good possibility Count 5 40 2 14 28 5 7 0 8 7 1 117

judge the possibility for % within Municipality 15,6% 22,5% 20,0% 29,2% 25,9% 29,4% 19,4% ,0% 22,2% 25,9% 9,1% 23,2% today’s children and Election Vote 2006 youth to be able to get in Pretty good possibility Count 19 101 6 24 59 10 19 0 23 16 8 285 the future – a good % within Municipality education? 59,4% 56,7% 60,0% 50,0% 54,6% 58,8% 52,8% ,0% 63,9% 59,3% 72,7% 56,5% Election Vote 2006

Neither good nor bad Count 4 26 2 7 11 1 8 1 2 4 2 68

possibility % within Municipality 12,5% 14,6% 20,0% 14,6% 10,2% 5,9% 22,2% 100,0% 5,6% 14,8% 18,2% 13,5% Election Vote 2006

Pretty bad possibility Count 4 9 0 3 9 1 1 0 3 0 0 30

% within Municipality 12,5% 5,1% ,0% 6,3% 8,3% 5,9% 2,8% ,0% 8,3% ,0% ,0% 6,0% Election Vote 2006

Very bad possibility Count 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4

% within Municipality ,0% 1,1% ,0% ,0% ,9% ,0% 2,8% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,8% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 178 10 48 108 17 36 1 36 27 11 504

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006 Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

a Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 35,795 40 ,660

Likelihood Ratio 38,523 40 ,537

Linear-by-Linear ,408 1 ,523 Association

N of Valid Cases 503

a. 32 cells (58.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03.

99b. How would you judge the possibility for today’s children and youth to be able to get in the future – a good job? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 99b. How would you Very good possibility Count 1 14 1 6 13 2 5 0 2 0 1 45

judge the possibility for % within Municipality 3,2% 7,9% 10,0% 12,5% 12,0% 11,8% 13,9% ,0% 5,6% ,0% 9,1% 8,9% today’s children and Election Vote 2006 youth to be able to get in Pretty good possibility Count 10 67 3 17 46 8 12 0 15 11 2 191 the future – a good job? % within Municipality 32,3% 37,6% 30,0% 35,4% 42,6% 47,1% 33,3% ,0% 41,7% 40,7% 18,2% 38,0% Election Vote 2006

Neither good nor bad Count 10 61 5 20 34 3 11 1 13 14 4 176

possibility % within Municipality 32,3% 34,3% 50,0% 41,7% 31,5% 17,6% 30,6% 100,0% 36,1% 51,9% 36,4% 35,0% Election Vote 2006

Pretty bad possibility Count 7 31 1 4 13 3 7 0 6 1 4 77

% within Municipality 22,6% 17,4% 10,0% 8,3% 12,0% 17,6% 19,4% ,0% 16,7% 3,7% 36,4% 15,3% Election Vote 2006

Very bad possibility Count 3 5 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 14

% within Municipality 9,7% 2,8% ,0% 2,1% 1,9% 5,9% 2,8% ,0% ,0% 3,7% ,0% 2,8% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 178 10 48 108 17 36 1 36 27 11 503

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006 Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2-

Municipality Value df sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 51,596a 40 ,104

Likelihood Ratio 59,252 40 ,025 Linear-by-Linear ,159 1 ,690 Association

N of Valid Cases 500 a. 28 cells (50.9%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .07.

99d. How would you judge the possibility for today’s children and youth to be able to get in the future – the same welfare as today? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 99d. How would you Very good possibility Count 0 18 2 3 11 0 4 0 4 0 1 43

judge the possibility for % within Municipality ,0% 10,2% 20,0% 6,4% 10,2% ,0% 11,1% ,0% 11,1% ,0% 9,1% 8,6% today’s children and Election Vote 2006 youth to be able to get in Pretty good possibility Count 10 49 3 14 44 9 5 0 4 10 2 150 the future – the same % within Municipality welfare as today? 33,3% 27,7% 30,0% 29,8% 40,7% 52,9% 13,9% ,0% 11,1% 37,0% 18,2% 30,0% Election Vote 2006

Neither good nor bad Count 7 56 4 13 30 5 14 1 9 10 6 155

possibility % within Municipality 23,3% 31,6% 40,0% 27,7% 27,8% 29,4% 38,9% 100,0% 25,0% 37,0% 54,5% 31,0% Election Vote 2006

Pretty bad possibility Count 8 39 1 13 18 3 11 0 15 6 1 115

% within Municipality 26,7% 22,0% 10,0% 27,7% 16,7% 17,6% 30,6% ,0% 41,7% 22,2% 9,1% 23,0% Election Vote 2006

Very bad possibility Count 5 15 0 4 5 0 2 0 4 1 1 37

% within Municipality 16,7% 8,5% ,0% 8,5% 4,6% ,0% 5,6% ,0% 11,1% 3,7% 9,1% 7,4% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 30 177 10 47 108 17 36 1 36 27 11 500

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

APPENDIX 3 Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 20,119a 10 ,028 Case Processing Summary

Likelihood Ratio 20,963 10 ,021 Cases Linear-by-Linear Valid Missing Total 6,402 1 ,011 Association N Percent N Percent N Percent N of Valid Cases 507 Gender * 95. Alla andra Municipalityer Pearson Chi-Square 30,458b 10 ,001 Municipality Election 2537 80,7% 605 19,3% 3142 100,0% i Skåne Vote 2006 * Malmo Likelihood Ratio 33,029 10 ,000

Crosstabulation Linear-by-Linear ,320 1 ,571 Association

N of Valid Cases 2030

a. 3 cells (13.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .49.

b. 2 cells (9.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.78.

Gender * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo Gender Female Count 19 91 7 28 61 9 21 1 10 8 4 259

% within Municipality 59,4% 50,3% 70,0% 58,3% 56,5% 52,9% 58,3% 100,0% 27,8% 29,6% 36,4% 51,1% Election Vote 2006

Male Count 13 90 3 20 47 8 15 0 26 19 7 248

% within Municipality 40,6% 49,7% 30,0% 41,7% 43,5% 47,1% 41,7% ,0% 72,2% 70,4% 63,6% 48,9% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 181 10 48 108 17 36 1 36 27 11 507

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

All other municipalities in Gender Female Count 43 328 81 115 274 49 63 6 54 40 36 1089

Scania % within Municipality 58,9% 53,1% 57,9% 60,8% 48,6% 57,0% 68,5% 100,0% 47,0% 46,0% 60,0% 53,6% Election Vote 2006

Male Count 30 290 59 74 290 37 29 0 61 47 24 941

% within Municipality 41,1% 46,9% 42,1% 39,2% 51,4% 43,0% 31,5% ,0% 53,0% 54,0% 40,0% 46,4% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 73 618 140 189 564 86 92 6 115 87 60 2030

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig. (2- Municipality Value df sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 100,307a 50 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 103,299 50 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 1,947 1 ,163 Association

N of Valid Cases 474

a. 37 cells (56.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03.

Age group * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo Age 15-19 Count 2 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 2 1 1 12

group years old % within Municipality 6,7% ,6% ,0% 2,2% 2,9% 7,7% ,0% ,0% 5,6% 5,0% 9,1% 2,5% Election Vote 2006

20-29 Count 8 16 2 11 14 1 12 0 7 0 2 73

years old % within Municipality 26,7% 9,4% 22,2% 23,9% 13,5% 7,7% 35,3% ,0% 19,4% ,0% 18,2% 15,4% Election Vote 2006

30-39 Count 6 34 4 10 28 3 8 0 7 1 3 104

years old % within Municipality 20,0% 20,0% 44,4% 21,7% 26,9% 23,1% 23,5% ,0% 19,4% 5,0% 27,3% 21,9% Election Vote 2006

40-49 Count 9 25 1 9 13 2 2 1 10 1 4 77

years old % within Municipality 30,0% 14,7% 11,1% 19,6% 12,5% 15,4% 5,9% 100,0% 27,8% 5,0% 36,4% 16,2% Election Vote 2006

50-59 Count 2 37 1 6 19 1 10 0 7 4 0 87

years old % within Municipality 6,7% 21,8% 11,1% 13,0% 18,3% 7,7% 29,4% ,0% 19,4% 20,0% ,0% 18,4% Election Vote 2006

60-75 Count 3 57 1 9 27 5 2 0 3 13 1 121

years old % within Municipality 10,0% 33,5% 11,1% 19,6% 26,0% 38,5% 5,9% ,0% 8,3% 65,0% 9,1% 25,5% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 30 170 9 46 104 13 34 1 36 20 11 474

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 73,054a 30 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 72,239 30 ,000

Linear-by-Linear ,253 1 ,615 Association

N of Valid Cases 505

a. 15 cells (34.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .19.

Education background (in 4 groups) * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo Education Low Count 4 52 1 3 11 5 3 0 6 8 2 95

background (in 4 % within Municipality 12,5% 28,9% 10,0% 6,4% 10,2% 29,4% 8,3% ,0% 16,7% 29,6% 18,2% 18,8% groups) Election Vote 2006

Middle-low Count 7 37 1 5 28 3 5 0 17 3 4 110

% within Municipality 21,9% 20,6% 10,0% 10,6% 25,9% 17,6% 13,9% ,0% 47,2% 11,1% 36,4% 21,8% Election Vote 2006

Middle- Count 9 49 3 12 21 3 15 0 7 7 3 129

high % within Municipality 28,1% 27,2% 30,0% 25,5% 19,4% 17,6% 41,7% ,0% 19,4% 25,9% 27,3% 25,5% Election Vote 2006

High Count 12 42 5 27 48 6 13 1 6 9 2 171

% within Municipality 37,5% 23,3% 50,0% 57,4% 44,4% 35,3% 36,1% 100,0% 16,7% 33,3% 18,2% 33,9% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 180 10 47 108 17 36 1 36 27 11 505

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 103,545a 70 ,006

Likelihood Ratio 107,346 70 ,003

Linear-by-Linear ,193 1 ,660 Association

N of Valid Cases 505 a. 62 cells (70.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

87. What is the highest level of education that you have achieved? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 87. What is the highest Have not completed Count 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4

level of education that primary school %* ,0% 1,1% ,0% 2,1% ,0% 5,9% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,8% you have achieved? Primary school Count 4 50 1 2 11 4 3 0 6 8 2 91

%* 12,5% 27,8% 10,0% 4,3% 10,2% 23,5% 8,3% ,0% 16,7% 29,6% 18,2% 18,0%

Studies at secondary Count 6 15 0 3 9 1 1 0 7 1 2 45

school or job training %* 18,8% 8,3% ,0% 6,4% 8,3% 5,9% 2,8% ,0% 19,4% 3,7% 18,2% 8,9% program

Completion of Count 1 22 1 2 19 2 4 0 10 2 2 65

secondary school or job %* 3,1% 12,2% 10,0% 4,3% 17,6% 11,8% 11,1% ,0% 27,8% 7,4% 18,2% 12,9% training program

After secondary school Count 5 16 1 5 10 0 5 0 6 3 1 52

training (not college) %* 15,6% 8,9% 10,0% 10,6% 9,3% ,0% 13,9% ,0% 16,7% 11,1% 9,1% 10,3%

Studies at college or Count 4 33 2 7 11 3 10 0 1 4 2 77

university %* 12,5% 18,3% 20,0% 14,9% 10,2% 17,6% 27,8% ,0% 2,8% 14,8% 18,2% 15,2%

Completion of Count 12 40 5 27 46 6 12 1 6 9 2 166

undergraduate degree %*

from college or 37,5% 22,2% 50,0% 57,4% 42,6% 35,3% 33,3% 100,0% 16,7% 33,3% 18,2% 32,9%

university

Completion of graduate Count 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 5

degree %* ,0% 1,1% ,0% ,0% 1,9% ,0% 2,8% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 1,0%

Total Count 32 180 10 47 108 17 36 1 36 27 11 505

%* 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

*The percentage is within the Malmo Municipality Election Vote of 2006.

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 45,452a 40 ,255

Likelihood Ratio 42,539 40 ,362

Linear-by-Linear 1,883 1 ,170 Association

N of Valid Cases 505

a. 37 cells (67.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

81. What is your current living situation? * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 81. What is your current In a villa or terraced Count 5 51 3 17 42 5 4 0 13 8 4 152

living situation? house % within Municipality 15,6% 28,3% 30,0% 35,4% 38,9% 29,4% 11,1% ,0% 37,1% 29,6% 36,4% 30,1% Election Vote 2006

In an apartment Count 24 123 7 30 66 12 32 1 21 17 7 340

% within Municipality 75,0% 68,3% 70,0% 62,5% 61,1% 70,6% 88,9% 100,0% 60,0% 63,0% 63,6% 67,3% Election Vote 2006

In a retirement center, Count 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3

group home or service % within Municipality 3,1% ,6% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 3,7% ,0% ,6% house Election Vote 2006

In student housing or in Count 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5

a roommate situation % within Municipality 6,3% ,6% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 2,9% 3,7% ,0% 1,0% Election Vote 2006

Other living situation Count 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

% within Municipality ,0% 2,2% ,0% 2,1% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 1,0% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 180 10 48 108 17 36 1 35 27 11 505

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 72,508a 30 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 80,722 30 ,000

Linear-by-Linear 1,389 1 ,239 Association

N of Valid Cases 504

a. 19 cells (43.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .07.

77. Marital Status * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 77. Marital status Single Count 10 58 4 11 35 3 19 0 14 8 5 167

% within Municipality 32,3% 32,0% 40,0% 22,9% 32,7% 17,6% 52,8% ,0% 40,0% 29,6% 45,5% 33,1% Election Vote 2006

Co-habiter Count 13 31 2 11 18 0 11 1 12 3 1 103

(have a live-in % within Municipality boyfriend/girlfrie Election Vote 2006 41,9% 17,1% 20,0% 22,9% 16,8% ,0% 30,6% 100,0% 34,3% 11,1% 9,1% 20,4% nd)

Married Count 8 73 4 26 48 10 6 0 9 11 5 200

% within Municipality 25,8% 40,3% 40,0% 54,2% 44,9% 58,8% 16,7% ,0% 25,7% 40,7% 45,5% 39,7% Election Vote 2006

Widow/widower Count 0 19 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 5 0 34

% within Municipality ,0% 10,5% ,0% ,0% 5,6% 23,5% ,0% ,0% ,0% 18,5% ,0% 6,7% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 31 181 10 48 107 17 36 1 35 27 11 504

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 11,422a 10 ,326

Likelihood Ratio 11,613 10 ,312

Linear-by-Linear 1,611 1 ,204 Association

N of Valid Cases 506

a. 4 cells (18.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .40.

80. Do you have children? 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 80. Do you have Yes Count 19 117 5 27 68 12 14 1 19 16 7 305

children? % within Municipality 59,4% 64,6% 50,0% 56,3% 63,0% 70,6% 38,9% 100,0% 54,3% 59,3% 63,6% 60,3% Election Vote 2006

No Count 13 64 5 21 40 5 22 0 16 11 4 201

% within Municipality 40,6% 35,4% 50,0% 43,8% 37,0% 29,4% 61,1% ,0% 45,7% 40,7% 36,4% 39,7% Election Vote 2006

Total Count 32 181 10 48 108 17 36 1 35 27 11 506

% within Municipality 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% Election Vote 2006

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 121,630a 70 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 125,328 70 ,000

Linear-by-Linear ,345 1 ,557 Association

N of Valid Cases 487

a. 58 cells (65.9%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .06.

88. Yearly income before taxes (in Swedish Crowns) * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 88. Yearly income 100,000 or less Count 2 12 3 2 4 1 7 0 2 1 2 36

before taxes (in Swedish %* 6,9% 6,8% 30,0% 4,3% 3,8% 6,3% 20,6% ,0% 5,7% 4,0% 18,2% 7,4% Crowns) 101,000-200,000 Count 3 35 1 4 8 3 7 0 5 6 2 74

%* 10,3% 19,9% 10,0% 8,7% 7,7% 18,8% 20,6% ,0% 14,3% 24,0% 18,2% 15,2%

201,000-300,000 Count 9 39 0 8 17 3 8 0 4 8 2 98

%* 31,0% 22,2% ,0% 17,4% 16,3% 18,8% 23,5% ,0% 11,4% 32,0% 18,2% 20,1%

301,000-400,000 Count 10 32 0 5 17 3 6 0 8 1 0 82

%* 34,5% 18,2% ,0% 10,9% 16,3% 18,8% 17,6% ,0% 22,9% 4,0% ,0% 16,8%

401,000-500,000 Count 2 30 3 6 15 3 5 0 7 5 4 80

%* 6,9% 17,0% 30,0% 13,0% 14,4% 18,8% 14,7% ,0% 20,0% 20,0% 36,4% 16,4%

501,000-600,000 Count 3 11 1 8 16 1 0 1 5 0 0 46

%* 10,3% 6,3% 10,0% 17,4% 15,4% 6,3% ,0% 100,0% 14,3% ,0% ,0% 9,4%

601,000-700,000 Count 0 9 1 4 7 1 0 0 3 3 1 29

%* ,0% 5,1% 10,0% 8,7% 6,7% 6,3% ,0% ,0% 8,6% 12,0% 9,1% 6,0%

More than 700,000 Count 0 8 1 9 20 1 1 0 1 1 0 42

%* ,0% 4,5% 10,0% 19,6% 19,2% 6,3% 2,9% ,0% 2,9% 4,0% ,0% 8,6%

Total Count 29 176 10 46 104 16 34 1 35 25 11 487

%* 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

*The percentage is within the Malmo Municipality Election Vote of 2006.

Chi-Square Tests

Municipality Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Malmo Pearson Chi-Square 123,602a 70 ,000

Likelihood Ratio 125,609 70 ,000

Linear-by-Linear ,201 1 ,654 Association

N of Valid Cases 484

a. 67 cells (76.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .00.

67. Employment status * 95. Municipality Election Vote 2006 * Malmo Crosstabulation

95. Municipality Election Vote 2006

People’s Christian

Municipality Left Party Social Democrats Center Party Party Moderates Democrats Green Party Health Care Party Sweden Democrats Other party Blank vote Total

Malmo 67. Employment status Gainfully employed Count 18 85 5 27 63 8 21 1 27 3 6 264

(including those on sick- %*

leave and parental 62,1% 49,4% 55,6% 56,3% 61,2% 47,1% 61,8% 100,0% 77,1% 12,0% 54,5% 54,5%

leave)

Working under labor Count 1 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 12

market employment %* 3,4% 2,9% ,0% 2,1% 1,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 2,9% 8,0% 9,1% 2,5% policy measures

Enrolled in vocational Count 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

training %* ,0% ,0% ,0% 2,1% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,2%

Unemployed Count 1 7 1 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 2 18

%* 3,4% 4,1% 11,1% ,0% 4,9% ,0% 5,9% ,0% ,0% ,0% 18,2% 3,7%

Retired Count 3 43 2 6 21 7 3 0 2 17 0 104

%* 10,3% 25,0% 22,2% 12,5% 20,4% 41,2% 8,8% ,0% 5,7% 68,0% ,0% 21,5%

In early retirement Count 0 11 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 19

%* ,0% 6,4% ,0% 4,2% ,0% ,0% 5,9% ,0% 2,9% 12,0% ,0% 3,9%

Studying Count 5 18 1 5 7 1 5 0 4 0 2 48

%* 17,2% 10,5% 11,1% 10,4% 6,8% 5,9% 14,7% ,0% 11,4% ,0% 18,2% 9,9%

Other Count 1 3 0 6 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 18

%* 3,4% 1,7% ,0% 12,5% 5,8% 5,9% 2,9% ,0% ,0% ,0% ,0% 3,7%

Total Count 29 172 9 48 103 17 34 1 35 25 11 484

%* 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%

*The percentage is within the Malmo Municipality Election Vote of 2006.