Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T14:26:21.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Determinants of Intercountry Differences in European Emigration: 1881–1900

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

John A. Tomaske
John A. Tomaske
Affiliation:
California State College at Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A distinctive feature of the nineteenth-century international economy was the mass movement of people out of Europe. Between 1840 and 1914 over forty million persons permanently left Europe and settled in the New World, Asiatic Russia and Oceana. In contrast with contemporary population transfers, nineteenth-century international migration occurred within an international political framework which placed few restrictions on geographic mobility. Within this institutional context there were substantial country by country differences in the participation of European populations. This article is concerned with the secular determinants of intercountry differences in emigration.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 1971 , pp. 840 - 853
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I began research on this topic while I was a graduate student at the University of Washington. I am indebted to Professors Douglass North and Robert Thomas. My colleagues, Professors Harold Brumm, George Jensen, Paul Mu and Richard Roseman provided valuable comments on earlier drafts. I assume responsibility for all remaining errors.

1 Wilcox, Walter and Ferenczi, Imre, International Migration, Vol. 1, (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1929Google Scholar) and Vol. 2 (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1931). These volumes contain a comprehensive survey of international migration. An excellent review of the economic and social forces affecting international migration is found in: United Nations, Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends, Population Studies No. 17, ST/SOA/Series A (New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 1953).

2 See for example: Thomas, Brinley, Migration and Economic Growth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954Google Scholar); Simon Kuznets, “Underdeveloped Countries and the Pre-Industrial Phase in Advanced Countries,” Proceedings of the World Population Conference, 1954, reprinted in Agarwala, A. S. and Singh, S. P., The Economics of Underdevelopment (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1958Google Scholar).

3 Fleisher, Belton M., “Some Economic Aspects of Puerto Rican Migration to the United States,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, XLV, No. 3 (1963), 245–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kelley, Allen C., “International Migration and Economic Growth, Australia: 1865–1935,” The Journal of Economic History, XXV, 3 (1965), 333–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilkinson, Maurice, “European Migration to the United States: An Econometric Analysis of Aggregate Labor Supply and Demand,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, LII, 3 (1970), 272–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Easterlin, Richard A., “Influences in European Emigration Before World War One,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, IX, 3 (1961), 314–39Google Scholar.

4 Adelman, Irma, “An Econometric. Analysis of Population Growth,” The American Economic Review, LIII, 3 (1963), 314–39Google Scholar; Easterlin, Richard A., “The Baby Boom in Perspective,” The American Economic Review, LI, 5 (1961), 869–911Google Scholar.

5 Virtually the only economic analysis of nineteenth-century international migration using cross-section techniques is: Easterlin, “Influences in European Overseas Emigration Before World War One,” pp. 314–39.

6 Examples of these three approaches are: Jerome, Harry, Migration and Business Cycles (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1926Google Scholar); Brinley Thomas, Migration and Economic Growth; Thomas, Dorothy S., Social and Economic Aspects of Swedish Population Movements (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1941Google Scholar). A critical evaluation of some aspects of Brinley Thomas's long-swing hypothesis is: Tomaske, John A., “International Migration and Economic Growth: The Swedish Experience,” THE JOUHNAL OF ECONOMIC HISTORY, XXV, 4 (1965), 696–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 This point is discussed at length in: Kirk, Dudley, Europe's Population in the Interwar Years (Geneva: League of Nations, 1946Google Scholar); Easterlin, “Influences in European Overseas Emigration Before World War One,” pp. 314–39.

8 Kuznets, p. 150.

9 Kirk, p. 8.

10 Ravenhold, H., “A Quantitative Concept of the International Mobility of Population and its Application to Certain European Countries in the Period 1851–1935,” théorie Générale de la Population, I (Paris: Congrés International de la Population, 1937), p. 228Google Scholar.

11 United Nations, p. 118.

12 Brinley Thomas, chs. vii, viii, xii, xiv. Scott, Franklin D., “The Study of the Effects of Emigration,” The Scandinavian Economic History Review, XVIII, 2 (1961), 171–74Google Scholar.

13 Brinley Thomas, p, 224.

14 Scott, Franklin D., Emigration and Immigration (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1963), pp. 2–3Google Scholar. Demographers have long viewed international migration as a safety valve. See for example: Moore, W. E., Economic Demography of Eastern Europe (Geneva: League of Nations, 1945Google Scholar); Friedlander, Dov. “Demographic Responses and Population Change,” Demography, VI, 4 (1969), 359–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 This implies a multiplicative relationship between information, Other socioeconomic variables and migration.

16 Stigler notes that employers in destination regions have little incentive to provide information to prospective migrants in foreign regions unless the prospective migrants are easily identifiable in some manner. Stigler, George J., “Information in the Labor Market,” The Journal of Political Economy, LXX, 5, Part 2 (1963), 102–03Google Scholar.

17 Jerome, p. 77.

18 United Nations, p 119.

19 Fleisher, pp. 250–52; Orsagh, Thomas J. and Mooney, Peter J., “A Model for the Dispersion of the Migrant Labor Force and Some Results for the United States, 1880–1920,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, HI, 3 (1970), 306, 309–12Google Scholar. The spatial distribution of relatives and friends is determined by past migration and, therefore, by the determinants of past migration. Cross-section analysis involves no assumptions as to either the time shape of previous migration or its determinants and avoids the possibility of simultaneity bias which may be involved in some formulations using lagged variables.

20 The relationship between the natural increase of population and the change in the working age population depends on the age specific impact of mortality change. During the last half of the nineteenth century, mortality changes were concentrated among infants. International migration was concentrated in the age group 15–30.

21 For an extended discussion of the costs of migration see: Kelley, pp. 333–45; Sjaastad, Larry A., “The Costs and Returns of Human Migration,” The Journal of Political Economy, LXX, 5, Part 2 (1963), 80–93Google Scholar.

22 The regressioii estimates for the decade 1881–1890 uses data for the following countries: The British Isles exclusive of Ireland, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. In addition to these countries data for Russia and Ireland are used in the estimates for the decade 1891–1900.

23 With two exceptions the data are from: Sunbärg, Gustav, Apercus Statistiques Intemaux, Onzième Année (Stockholm, 1908Google Scholar). The natural increase data for Portugal, 1861–1870, were estimated from Sunbärg's data for births, deaths and net migration. Natural increase data for Spain, 1871–1880, were also estimated in this manner.

24 United States immigration data record as immigrants all alien passenger arrivals who intend to reside in the United States. From 1868 to 1900, only third-class passengers were counted as immigrants and prior to 1903, passengers in transit were classed as immigrants. A good discussion of these data is given by: Wilcox and Ferenczi, Vol. I. Immigration data are taken from: Ibid., pp. 384–89.

25 This is the foreign born in the United States population as enumerated in the United States Census of Population for 1880 and 1890. The data used in this study are from: Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1960), p. 66.

26 Using Mulhall's terminology, these figures were constructed by taking 90 percent of agricultural values, 90 percent of mining, 60 percent of manufactures. Transport is computed at 10 percent of the gross value of agriculture, mining and manufactures; house-rent, according to the assessed valuation or the nearest estimate; commerce, 10 percent on the imports and exports; shipping, 30 percent per ton yearly of carrying power; banking, 5 percent on banking power; and an additional allowance on the total of the preceding eight items to cover services. Mulhall, Michael G., The Dictionary of Statistics (4th ed.; London: G. Routledge and Son, 1903), p. 320Google Scholar.

27 Feinstein, C. H., ‘Income and Investment in the United Kingdom, 1856–1914” The Economic Journal, LXXI, 282 (1961), 367–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Studenski, Paul, The Income of Nations, Part J, History (New York: New York University Press, 1961), pp. 140–41Google Scholar.

29 Chow, Gregory C., “Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions,” Econometrica, XXVIII, 3 (July 1960), 591–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The hypothesis that the coefficients are equal was subjected to the F test and rejected at the .95 level of significance.

30 Lebergott, Stanley, Manpower in Economic Growth (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964), pp. 187–90Google Scholar.

31 The correlation coefficient for the excess of births 1841–1860 with the excess of births 1861–1870 is .816 and with the excess of births 1871–1880 is .820.

32 Adleman, pp. 314–39; Kuznets, Simon, “Quantitative Aspects of the Economic Growth of Nations,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, V, 4 (1954), 1–94Google Scholar; Easterlin, “The American Baby Boom in Perspective,” pp. 869–911.