"Non-Western"

The division of the world’s countries into ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ is a concept developed by Statistics Denmark and is not widely used in other countries. Norway previously used a categorization of ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ countries but has since changed the names of the categories.

The terms are skewed and contribute – intentionally or not – to stigmatizing and alienating a large group of people in Denmark with vastly different backgrounds.

The division is neither transparent, unambiguous, nor logically coherent. If you come from Romania or Bulgaria, you are defined as ‘Western,’ but if you come from the neighboring country to the west, Serbia, or from Bosnia and Herzegovina, which lies even further west, you are ‘non-Western,’ while people from Australia and New Zealand – which lie very far to the east – are defined as ‘Western.'

In the public and political debate in Denmark, the so-called ‘non-Western’ countries are often equated with countries – especially in the Middle East and North Africa – where the majority of the populations are Muslims. This conflation of categories contributes to stigmatization.

Officially, ‘non-Western’ countries include all countries in the world except the 27 EU member states, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, UK, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the states of Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino, and the Vatican. This amounts to more than 150 countries as diverse as Ukraine, China, Mexico, and Lebanon. The group of ‘non-Western countries’ is very diverse, which makes it meaningless to make broad generalizations across it.

Statistics Denmark itself has claimed that the categories “has, in principle, nothing to do with whether the countries belong to one group or another in a geographical, political, economic, or cultural sense.” It is therefore bewildering that they stick to terms that focus so heavily on exactly geography, politics, and culture.

International criticism 

Over the years, the classification has drawn a great deal of criticism. It has been criticized for being “inaccurate and politically charged” and for “demonizing certain groups of people,” as well as for contributing to “racism and discrimination” and “racializing” citizens in Denmark, “reducing” them to “members of an ethnicity,” even though they, in many cases, were born in Denmark, are Danish citizens, and perceive themselves as Danish or as a mix of multiple cultures.  

The terms have also faced criticism from outside Denmark’s borders. The Council of Europe’s Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities has repeatedly criticized Denmark’s use of the classification, particularly in the Parallel Societies Act (formerly known as the Ghetto Act), and has strongly urged the Danish authorities to reconsider the use of the terms.  

The Committee monitors compliance with the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which Denmark has signed.  

The Committee finds that the classification is based on an arbitrary (non-objective) aggregation of statistics and may lead to discrimination and “them against us” rhetoric. Furthermore, it violates the right to free self-identification, which Denmark has committed itself to upholding. According to the Committee, all this is even more the case for the new ‘MENAPT’ (for the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkey) category, which in recent years has become an increasingly common expression among Danish politicians. The Danish ‘MENAPT’ category is inspired by an aggregation used by the International Monetary Fund in its economic analyses, with the addition of Turkey, as “the country plays a significant role in Denmark’s immigration history.’ A common feature of the countries in the ‘MENAPT’ group is that they have Muslim-majority populations.  

According to the Committee, people of “(assumed) ‘non-Western origin’, and notably Muslims” are the group in Danish society most affected by discrimination, hate speech, and hate crimes, and those identified as ‘non-Western’ find the classification both stigmatizing and alienating.  

Denmark, however, restricts the scope of the Framework Convention to the German minority, as the Danish government does not consider refugees and immigrants to have sufficiently “historical, long-term and lasting” ties to Denmark to constitute a national minority entitled to special protection under the Framework Convention. In this regard, the Committee notes that it nevertheless considers it relevant to look into the situation of other groups in Denmark that “experience issues in areas covered by the Framework Convention.” 

Excerpt from the Committee’s Sixth Opinion on Denmark from 2024:  

“The Advisory Committee reiterates its view that the statistical separation of residents according to their or their parents’ birthplace does not allow those concerned to freely self-identify. Instead, it introduces arbitrary distinctions contributing to a “them against us” rhetoric and stigmatisation. This is even more the case for the new “MENAPT” category covering persons assumed to be of Muslim faith based on this being the predominant religion in their or their parents’ country of birth.” 

“As regards the general climate of mutual respect and understanding, the authorities continue to implement a number of restrictive policies towards residents based on their or their parents’ country of birth as being of “non-Western origin”. This contributes to an atmosphere where ethnic, cultural, religious and even linguistic diversity is not acknowledged as an asset to be managed through mutual accommodation, but as a potential threat to the cohesion of society.” 

In response to the Committee’s criticism, the Danish government has stated that Denmark strives for an equal and fair treatment of all minorities residing in Denmark, and that the categories of ‘Western and non-Western origin’ is one of several aggregations of countries used by Statistics Denmark when publishing data on country of origin, and that Statistics Denmark “is not involved in decisions on data selection for legislative work.” 

Also the Council of Europe’s Commission against Racism and Intolerance has criticized Denmark’s use of the categorization of ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ in the Parallel Societies Act for “discrimination against persons with migration backgrounds” and in the field of employment for potentially contributing to stigmatization.  

Background and aim 

Previously, Statistics Denmark followed the UN classification of ‘more and less developed countries,’ but switched to the current classification in 2002. With this change, Statistics Denmark mostly upheld the UN’s definition, so that most of the ‘more developed’ countries came to be defined as ‘Western’, while the ‘less developed’ countries were defined as ‘non-Western’. Some adjustments were made. Japan and European countries outside the EU were defined as ‘non-Western,’ even though they had been listed as ‘more developed’ by the UN.  

There is no concrete documentation of the considerations that led to the choice of the terms ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ at the time. 

According to Statistics Denmark, the aim of the classification is to “describe the reason for immigration, the contribution to the economy, and social conditions.” Therefore, it is the immigrant’s background – including their basis for residence in Denmark – and their contribution to the economy that are the decisive criteria, Statistics Denmark writes in a memo. In different contexts, Statistics Denmark has emphasized the basis for residence in Denmark as the key difference between the two groups, noting that “people coming from what we call Western countries almost never come to seek asylum, while those coming from non-Western countries often come with asylum and family reunification as their basis for residence.” 

However, as the graph below shows, the picture is not at all that unambiguous when looking at the ‘non-Western’ countries.  

Classification in review 

Statistics Denmark has acknowledged that the classification of ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ countries is problematic. In 2018, this led to the establishment of a working group to conduct a “review” of the country aggregation.  

At the time, Statistics Denmark wrote that the terms “suggest a certain contrast between the two groups that was not intended,” and that “the naming itself does not provide a clear and unambiguous picture of what the basis for the division is.” It was also noted that the group of ‘non-Western’ countries “consists of a very diverse group, which at best shares the common trait of not being part of the defining group (i.e. ‘Western countries’, ed.), while in public discourse it takes on the character of a homogeneous group.” The working group also listed it as a downside of the classification that it “is not based exclusively on objective criteria.” 

Nevertheless, the classification has been preserved on the grounds that it continues to have “analytical value and utility” and that it is incorporated in current legislation.  

The analytical value and utility lie in the fact that, according to Statistics Denmark, there is a sufficiently large statistical difference between the two groups and a sufficiently small variation within the groups across a number of relevant parameters for them to continue serving towards their original aim.  

Statistics Denmark’s own analyses do indeed show that there is relatively little variation within the group of ‘Western’ countries regarding residence status and employment, and a fairly large difference between the two groups on the same parameters.  

However, the analyses also show that there is significant variation within the group of ‘non-Western’ countries. If we look at the different countries in the group, the proportion of people whose basis for residence is asylum or family reunification, for example, ranges from 5% in some countries to 95% in others, while the employment rate varies from 20% to 81%. Many of the countries classified as ‘non-Western’ are thus, on some parameters, more similar to the ‘Western’ countries than they are to the other ‘non-Western’ countries. For example, many immigrants today come from China, India, and the Philippines to study or work. And Iranians, for example, come both to work and to seek asylum.  

RESIDENCE PERMITS IN 2025, SELECTED ‘NON-WESTERN’ COUNTRIES

In 2025, virtually no persons from the six selected countries were granted a residence permit on the basis of asylum.  

A new classification? 

The Statistics Denmark working group found that a new classification of EU/EEA countries and countries outside the EU/EEA had almost exactly the same analytical value and utility as the ‘Western/non-Western’ categories, but was - contrary to the current classification - based on objective, transparent criteria. 

Such a division is meaningfully delineated by the special rights afforded to EU/EEA citizens – e.g. access to the EU labor market – and has the benefit of constituting a geographically consistent area. It would still leave a heterogeneous and complex non-group (the countries outside the EU/EEA), but it would be based on objective grounds and would rid the group of the stigmatizing label of ‘non-Western.’ With this classification, Denmark would also align itself with the one used by Eurostat, the EU’s statistical office, where people are categorized as EU citizens or third-country nationals, meaning from countries outside the EU.

‘WESTERN’ COUNTRIES AND EU/EEA COUNTRIES ARE ON AVERAGE MUCH ALIKE

Statistics Denmark has since introduced the EU/EEA classification as a supplement to the ‘Western/non-Western’ classification, allowing users to select both aggregations in relevant statistics. However, Statistics Denmark continues to use the ‘Western/non-Western’ classification as its primary. This is evident, for example, in the annual publication ‘Immigrants in Denmark,’ where the EU/EEA classification appears only to a very limited extent.  

The continued use of the ‘Western/non-Western’ classification means that other actors, such as research institutions and analytical institutes, opt for this classification. This makes it difficult to compare Danish research on immigrantion with that of other EU countries.  

In total, Statistics Denmark’s decision to stick to the ‘Western/non-Western’ classification comes down to the fact that the current terminology has become institutionalized through its incorporation into legislation.  

This, however, is something that could be remedied. Statistics Denmark should to the furthest extent possible transition to the EU/EEA classification in all future communication, while maintaining the old classification in its statistical database so that authorities can retrieve the relevant data. At the same time, political and administrative efforts should be made to replace the terms in Danish legislation.  

The fact that Denmark has used a problematic classification for so long should not in itself be an argument to stick to it. Rather, it is an argument for replacing it as soon as possible. The task of implementing a new classification will only get more cumbersome as time goes on. The sooner the cleanup begins, the better.  

Recommendations

Statistics Denmark should to the furthest extent possible transition to a classification that does not stigmatize and is based on objective and transparent criteria. An obvious choice is a division of countries within and outside the EU/EEA, as recommended by a working group established by Statistics Denmark itself. Statistics Denmark already applies this classification to a limited extent. 

Legislation containing the terms should be revised so that ‘Western/non-Western’ is replaced with ‘EU/EEA’ and ‘countries outside the EU/EEA,’ since the very use of the former categories in legislation has been the decisive factor in their continued use. 

The ‘MENAPT’ category should be phased out, as it contributes significantly to the stigmatization of certain cultures and religious groups.