IS THERE LIFE OUT SIDE THE MIGRANT NET W ORK? …home.kpn.nl/schro497/LesgerLucassenSchrover.pdf · con sidered a tran satlan tic m ove (P rice, 1963, 108; B arton , 1975, 49-50;

INTRODUCTION

In the last quarter of the XIXth century,an increasing number of Germansmigrated to the Dutch town Rotterdam.Most of them came from the Westernpart of the German Empire. No distinctpush-regions can be distinguishedwithin this vast area, nor do we seeethnic clustering within Rotterdam. Thisrather fragmented picture does not fitwith the existing migration typologies.To understand why migration theory hastrouble dealing with these dispersedpatterns, a short overview is useful.

Since the end of the XIXth century,geographical mobility has fascinatedthousands of scholars from variousdisciplines. Our understanding of thismultifaceted phenomenon has increasedaccordingly (Lucassen & Lucassen,1997). Especially the relatively recentfocus on the channelling function ofnetworks and of chain migration hastaken the research field an importantstep forward, away from mechanisticmacro push and pull approaches(Lucassen, 1987; Gabaccia, 1988, 76-97; Hoerder, 1997; Borges, 2000). Theconcept of chain migration, which ope-rates at the micro and meso level,reaches back to the beginning of thetwentieth century. At that time the UScommissioner-general for immigration

used the image of “endless chains” todescribe the pattern of immigration tothe United States. The chains arosethrough personal contacts and lettersbetween immigrants and those whoconsidered a transatlantic move (Price,1963, 108; Barton, 1975, 49-50;Alexander, 1981). Subsequently, RobertPark and his colleagues from theChicago School of Sociology acknowl-edged the explanatory potential of thisconcept, when they studied settlementpatterns of European immigrants inAmerican cities. They found that Ital-ians, for example, were not just scatteredat random throughout the UnitedStates, but “…they settle by villages andeven by streets, neighbors in Italy tend-ing to become neighbors here” (Thomas& Znaniecki, 1918, II, 1513-1515; seealso Park & Miller, 1921, 146).

Since then “chain migration” hasbecome a key term in scholarly work onmigration. It was, however, for a longtime overshadowed by the push-pullparadigm, which tended to reduce immi-grants to particles without any agency,moved principally by economic andpolitical forces. In the 1960s the chainmigration concept finally broke through,when migration scholars started to paymore attention to the social dimensionsof human mobility (Price, 1963;

29

ANNALES DE DÉMOGRAPHIE HISTORIQUE 2002 n° 2 p. 29 à 50

IS THERE LIFE OUTSIDE THE MIGRANT NETWORK?GERMAN IMMIGRANTS IN XIXth CENTURY NETHER-

LANDS AND THE NEED FOR A MORE BALANCEDMIGRATION TYPOLOGY1

by Clé LESGER, Leo LUCASSEN & Marlou SCHROVER

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 29

MacDonald & MacDonald, 1964).Many of these more recent authors usequite a narrow definition of chain migra-tion only considering streams that start inone place or small area and end in onedestination (Lee, 1969, 293; Lewis,1982, 47-48). Tilly’s concept of “trans-planted networks” and his well knownand influential definition of chain migra-tion fit in this tradition. According toTilly: “Chain migration moves sets ofrelated individuals or households fromone place to another via a set of socialarrangements in which people at thedestination provide aid, information, andencouragement to new immigrants. Sucharrangements tend to produce a consi-derable proportion of experimentalmoves and a large backflow to the placeof origin. At the destination, they alsotend to produce durable clusters ofpeople linked by common origin”. (Tilly,1978, 53)

Apart from chain migration, Tillydistinguishes three other patterns ofmigration: local, circular and careermigration. In our study of Germanimmigrants in the Netherlands careermigration is important. It is defined byTilly as “…more or less definitive movesin response to opportunities to changeposition within or among large struc-tures: organised trades, firms, govern-ments, mercantile networks, armies, andthe like. If there is a circuit, it is basednot on the social bonds of the migrant'splace of origin, but on the logic of thelarge structure itself ”. (Tilly, 1978, 54)

Although innovative and productive,Tilly’s typology is also problematicbecause it excludes long distance migra-tion flows that do not fit his four cate-gories3. The migration of Germanbakers to the Netherlands, for instance,does not fit in Tilly’s definitions.

German bakers migrated to the Nether-lands in large numbers already beforethe XIXth century (Knotter and VanZanden, 1987). Their migration conti-nued into the XIXth century. Many of theGerman bakers went to Amsterdam.Their migration can not be consideredcareer migration, as defined by Tilly,because it was not for instance organisedby large firms or governments. It was,however, also not chain migration, sincethere was no clustering of Germanbakers from one particular village orwell-defined German region in Dutchtowns. Immigrant bakers came fromvarious parts of Germany. They movedin a much more solitary fashion to theNetherlands than is accounted for in themodel of chain migration.

Other earlier studies on migrationmade similar findings. Decades ago, inhis study on Southern Europeans inAustralia, Charles Price noticed that alarge part of the immigrant populationdid not consist of people coming fromthe same village or region. Neither didthey cluster in Australia (Price, 1963,112). In his study of European migra-tion to Cleveland, Josef Barton alsocame across immigrants who were notpart of transplanted networks. Helabelled them as “solitary”. About 70percent of all Rumanians and Slovaksmigrated in a fashion in which neithervillage nor district connections wereimportant (Barton, 1975, 51-54). Largevillage chains, common for Italiansmigrating to America, were an exceptionrather than the rule. In Bechelloni’sstudy of Italian immigration to France,his data show a very scattered pattern ofmigration. These led him to concludethat there were migration paths between“n’importe quelle localité italienne à n'im-porte quelle localité d'accueil en France”.

30

CLÉ LESGER, LEO LUCASSEN AND MARLOU SCHROVER

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 30

Italians moved from every place in Italyto every place in France (Bechelloni,1988, 85).

The concept of chain migration can ofcourse be stretched so that it includesalso “solitary” migrants. To us, this doesnot seem the best way to move on. Theroot of the problem is Tilly’s typologyitself. It is composed of unlike quanti-

ties: local migration refers to distance(space), circular migration to the timethat migrants stay in their newsurroundings, and chain and careermigration to the mode of migration. Wetherefore propose to distinguishbetween at least three separate but inter-related dimensions of migration, eachwith its own typology (see figure 1).

31

IS THERE LIFE OUTSIDE THE MIGRANT NETWORK?

Fig. 1 A tri-nominal typology of migration

SPACE

I. Local migrationII. Regional \ national migrationIII. International \ transatlantic migration

TIME

I. Temporary migrationII. Circular migrationIII. Definitive \ final migration

MODE

I. Personal network migration(including chain)

II. Organisational or non-personal network migration (including career)

III. Solitary migration

In our case study of German immi-grants to the Netherlands we focus onone of the dimensions of migration: themode of migration. The mode of migra-tion therefore needs some clarification.Personal network migration is primarilybased on personal contacts, whether theyare shaped as a chain or as a web, orwhether they are forged at the level ofthe family, the village or the region. In allcases people move because they areinformed (and often helped) by peoplethey know or know of. Organisationalmigration (or non-personal networkmigration) resembles Tilly’s definition ofcareer migration, but our typology is notrestricted to elites or (highly) skilled

immigrants. Artisans, journeymen andunskilled workers, who move within aguild-like tramping system also fit intothis category. Organisational migrationincludes German journeymen bakers inAmsterdam and apprentices in crafts andtrade. Non-network migration refers toimmigrants (and their families) whohave only a general knowledge of theopportunity structure in a certain desti-nation, upon which they make theirdecision to move, without havingpersonal contacts at their destination.Information about their distant destina-tion will in most cases be transferred atthe personal level, but in contrast to(personal and non-personal) network

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 31

migration, the decision to move does notprimarily depend on the expectedsupport of specific social and profes-sional networks. Typical examples of thistype are unskilled workers in the trans-port sector, or female domestics, whotried their luck in Rotterdam, because itwas common knowledge that this largeport city offered ample opportunities foremployment. Neither organisational nornon-network migration normally lead tomassive out-migration from specificplaces or to concentrated ethnic settle-ment at specific destinations.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS, SOURCESAND METHODS

In the following we will first demon-strate that our typology of migrationmodes is a valid one. Our case study ofGermans in Rotterdam shows that migra-tion to this city was not exclusively chan-nelled through personal and professionalnetworks. Most migration to Rotterdamseems to have been of the non-networktype. A comparison with German migra-tion to Utrecht reveals some of the factorsthat account for this departure from theclassical theory because German migra-tion to Utrecht was largely channelledthrough networks.

The Rotterdam (Lesger and Lucassen)3

and Utrecht (Schrover) case studies wereconducted independently of each other.A comparison between the two Dutchcities was not planned in advance. Whendiscussing the different migration modesin the two cities, however, we came acrossproblems with the dominant migrationtypology and in particular with the classi-cal definition of chain migration. Wetherefore decided to combine our data.One of the consequences of the late decision to combine our findings is, that

although we used the same source, thedata were collected in different ways. Twomajor differences stand out. For Utrechtthe period under observation is longer(1849-1879) than that in Rotterdam(1870-1879), and for Utrecht morepersonal and contextual information wasgathered about German immigrants.

In both cases we used the populationregisters, which were introduced in theNetherlands around the middle of theXIXth century. They form the basis of acontinuous registration of all peopleliving permanently or temporarily in theNetherlands. These registers are based onthe censuses, that were held every tenyears and record all changes in householdcomposition and address in the periodbetween two census years. In contrast tothe German Meldewesen (See Jackson,1997 and Hochstadt, 1999) whichemerged in the same period, populationregisters were kept in every Dutchmunicipality and were interactive. Whena person left one municipality a record ofhis or her destination was kept in theplace of departure. At the destination theformer residence was registered. Thismakes it possible to follow people fromone place to the next, as long as theystayed in the Netherlands. The municipalpopulation registers list name, address,date and place of birth, religion, maritalstatus, occupation, date of death, as wellas previous and new addresses. They thusoffer a unique opportunity to reconstructmigration patterns of immigrantcommunities.

For the years between 1870 and 1879,we extracted from the Rotterdam popula-tion registers Germans arriving at an agebetween 15 and 30 years. A random selec-tion of 383 of these people (203 men and180 women) was analysed further44. Fromthe Utrecht population registers we

32


03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 32

extracted all people who were born inGerman regions and who lived in Utrechtbetween 1849 and 1879. This gave us atotal of 2052 people: 536 men and 423women who were already in Utrecht inthe 1850’s, and another 676 men and 417women who entered the city between1860 and 1879.

DESTINATION ROTTERDAM

Germans in Dutch cities in the XIXth

century have so far not attracted muchattention (except for Lucassen, 1987;Knotter, 1991; Lucassen, 2001 andSchrover, 2001a). This is surprising whenwe realise that in that period, as in thepreceding centuries, Germans were by farthe largest minority in the Netherlands.In the nineteenth century, 60% of allforeigners in the Netherlands came fromGerman regions. Around 1850 there wereofficially over forty thousand first genera-tion Germans in the Netherlands (Heijs,1995, 216 and 229). In the second half ofthe XIXth century German immigrationdid not keep pace with the overall growthof the population and as a consequencetheir relative numbers declined.

In contrast to the national trend, theproportion of Germans in Rotterdamcontinued to increase in the periodbetween 1870 and 1890 (Lucassen,2001). The main reason for this was theexpansion of the (transit) harbour,which became the largest in the Nether-lands. The increasing volume of trade inRotterdam was a function of its strategicposition between the rapidly industria-lising German Ruhr area and England(Nusteling, 1974). Through Rotterdamraw materials (such as ore, coal, grainand later also oil) were shipped to theRuhr area. The export of German(finished) products was less important

for the expansion of the Rotterdamharbour. The increasing dependence onGermany during the 1870s weakenedthe traditional links of the Rotterdammercantile community with GreatBritain. Increasingly it was orientedtowards the new German empire, andfrom the 1880’s onwards German wasthe first language of the Rotterdammerchants (Van de Laar, 2000, 149).

The expansion of the Rotterdam porteconomy pulled German migrants tothe city. It led to the establishment ofnumerous German trading firms andinsurance companies, that recruited partof their personnel (clerks, assistants)from Germany. It also attracted a largenumbers of dock-workers, skippers andsailors. But Rotterdam was also attrac-tive to German entrepreneurs whoaimed at the local market, such as thewell-studied shopkeepers from theWestphalian Münsterland.

The German community in Rotterdammanifested itself in a number of societies.In 1862 the Deutsche EvangelischeGemeinde was established, to offer reli-gious services to German skippers andsailors. In the same year the St.Raphaelsverein welcomed CatholicGermans. The Deutscher Turn- undRuderverein was set up in 1870. A numberof other societies with varying functionsfrom poor relief to singing followed in the1880s and 1890s. Around the turn of thecentury a German school was founded(Henkes, 1998)5. Many of these societies,led by Germans who stayed more or lesspermanently in the Netherlands, wereaimed at temporary immigrants, offeringthem a “home” in the strange newsurrounding. The membership of mostsocieties underwent many mutations. InRotterdam five out of six immigrants canbe considered temporary migrants,

33


03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 33

defined as those who left Rotterdamwithin a year. The situation in Rotterdammay have been similar to that in Vienna inthe same period, as characterised by theAustrian historians John and Lichtblau(1993, 66). The latter found that althoughthe membership of several large Czechassociations remained at a constant level,its composition changed dramaticallywithin a few years.

This short description of Rotterdamexplains why the city was attractive tocertain German immigrants, despite thedecreasing importance of the Netherlandsas a destination for German immigrantsin general, and the booming Germaneconomy. In the 1870s and 1880sGermans formed a small but growing partof the Rotterdam population. While thenumber of German immigrants inRotterdam increased, the sex-ratio withinthe German population changed. In 1850there had been more than two Germanmen to every German woman. In 1889there was just over one German man toevery German woman.

MIGRATION MODES OF GERMANIMMIGRANTS IN ROTTERDAM

While tracing the German migrants inthe population registers it soon became

clear that the overwhelming majorityonly stayed in Rotterdam for a relativelyshort period. Despite the high quality ofthe data extracted from of the popula-tion registers it remains difficult toestablish the migration modes of thesetemporary international immigrants. Towhat extent can they be classified asnetwork, organisational or non-networkimmigrants? We tackled this question bylooking at birthplaces.

Origin of the German immigrants inRotterdam

Looking at the birth places, the firstthing that catches the eye is the variety,and the absence of clear concentrationsin one place or region. This does notmean that there are no patterns at all.The Rhine valley stands out, as does theterritory of Niedersachsen (mainly thestates Hannover and Oldenburg) in theNorth-West. From the Rhine valleycame men and women in equalnumbers, but Niedersachsen is a maleprerogative. As the Rhine is a long riverand Niedersachsen a vast area, thisshould not be interpreted as indirectproof for network-modes of migrationin general and chain migration inparticular.

34


Tab. 1 Absolute and relative numbers of Germans in Rotterdam

Year German born % German nationality % Total

population Sex ratio

1849 1733 1.9 1126 (estimate)

1.2 91,210 2.2

1879 2466 1.7 1600 (estimate)

1.1 148,201 1.4

1889 4010 (estimate)

2.0 2609 1.3 201,858 1.2

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 34

35


At an individual level many of theGerman immigrants might have knownother Germans in Rotterdam who func-tioned as part of a chain. To find indica-tions for this network migration welooked closer at the household that themigrant joined upon arrival in Rotter-dam6. The population registers indicatewho was the head of a household. Welooked at the birthplace of the head of

the first household the immigrant joinedupon their arrival in Rotterdam. Tobegin with, most German immigrantsjoined households of which the headwas born in the Netherlands (57%);37% of German immigrants joined ahousehold of which the head was likethemselves, German. When we restrictour comparison to the German born,similarities stand out (Table 2).

Tab. 2 Birthplaces of German immigrants and German heads of households 1870-1879

German immigrants Head of first household Nordrhein-Westphalia 42 45 Niedersachsen 15 13 Unclear where in Germany 10 9 Rheinland-Pfalz 8 3 Baden-Württemberg 4 4 Hessen 5 4 Brandenburg 3 2 Saxonia 2 3 Rest 11 17 Total 100 (N=372) 100 (N=273)

Map. 1 Origin of German Migrants in Rotterdam, 1870-1879

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 35

36


We tried to find matches at the nomi-nal level between immigrants and the(mostly male) head of their household.This resulted in some concentrations:disproportionate numbers of immi-grants from Niedersachsen (45%)entered a household of which the headcame from the same state, whereas only19% of all the German heads of house-holds in the sample was born in thisstate. For Nordrhein-Westphalia the“matc” was less striking, but still existed(68% against 46%). But since theseterritories are very large, we have calcu-lated the distance (in kilometres)between the place of birth of themigrant and that of all the Germanborn members of the first household(Table 3).

These outcomes are much more telling,because it is obvious that the classic chainmigration (as measured by identical birth-places) seems rather exceptional. At most25 percent of the German migrants wholived in with German born heads ofhouseholds fall in this category. As wehave seen that these migrants comprised

only 37% of all German migrants, in theend the number of chain migrants in totalis only 9% (25% of 37%).

Occupations

Our data allow for yet another way totrace network migration. By linking theorigin and occupation of the immigrantswe might come across subgroups ofimmigrants from a well-defined areasharing the same occupation. Such acombination of chain migration andniche formation is not only a well-knownphenomenon among present day immi-grant entrepreneurs (Rath, 2000), butalso quite common in (early) modernEurope. We find it for example amongtextile workers coming from the Lille area(Lucassen & De Vries, 2001), Italianchimney sweeps from Ticino and Savoy(Chotkowski, 2000; Fontaine, 1996,114), and plasterers from Oldenburg ormasons from the Auvergne (Lucassen,1987; Schrover, 2001b).

To trace these kinds of niches we brokedown our Rotterdam data to the level ofspecific occupations and birthplaces. As

Tab. 3 Distance in kilometres between the birthplace of the German immigrants and the German born heads of the first household

Distance in kilometres N= % % cumulative

0-10 46 20 20

10-25 10 4 25

25-50 26 11 36

50-100 28 12 48

100-200 34 15 63

200-500 66 29 92

>500 18 8 100

Total 228 100

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 36

37


we had found little evidence of chainmigration so far, it was not surprisingthat this test yielded predominantlynegative results. Occupational sectorswith sufficient numbers of (male) immi-grants, such as metal, food, administra-tion, transport, and wholesale, show afragmented image. Only the Rhine valleycould be linked to the transport sector.The only other exception were Germanmen working in the retail trade, mainlyshops. Here we find a pattern that proba-bly points at niche formation throughchain migration. Almost all of themcome from a relatively small area in theNorth-West of Germany, in the vicinityof Oldenburg.

At first sight, the concentration ofGerman men in the textile retail trademay be linked to a specific group offormer textile peddlers, some of whombecame owners of (a chain of ) shops inthe XIXth century. Most of these shops

sold textile, but there were also shopswith a more general assortment. Themain area of origin of these shopkee-pers, some of whom became verysuccessful (e.g. the founders of C&A) isformed by the triangle Münster-Osnabrück-Rheine (Oberpenning,1996, 83). But the area north-east ofthis triangle, around Lingen, Meppenand Fürstenau, is also a traditional pusharea of peddlers (Lucassen, 1987). Theorigin of German men working intextile retailing in Rotterdam onlypartly coincides with these two areas.Most of the immigrants in the retailtrade were born about 50 kilometres tothe east, mainly in the southern part ofOldenburg. It is conceivable that theentrepreneurs who founded the chain ofshops in the Netherlands recruited theirpersonnel in a somewhat larger area, sothat we still can speak of sector-specificchain migration.

Map. 2 Origin of German male immigrants in Rotterdam working in the retail-trade, 1870-1879

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 37

Although more research is necessaryto further substantiate our findings,there is no doubt that personalnetwork migration and organisationalmigration (non-personal networkmigration) accounted for only a smallpart of the German immigration intoRotterdam. Many migrants and theirfamilies came to Rotterdam withoutmaking use of pre-existing personal orprofessional networks. In figure 1 wehave labelled this mode of migrationnon-network migration. The analysisof the Rotterdam data supports ourview that it should be included as adistinctive category in any typology ofmodes of migration.

A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE:GERMAN IMMIGRANTS INUTRECHT

How can it be explained that much ofthe migration to Rotterdam was of thenon-network type. The booming eco-nomy and the local opportunity struc-ture first come to the mind, as we knowthat labour market structures influencethe composition of the migrant popula-tion (Moch, 1992, 131-143; see also DeSchaepdrijver, 1990; Menjot & Pinol,1996; Green, 1997; and Lucassen,2002). The relation to the mode ofmigration is hard to explore without theuse of a comparative framework. Forthat reason we use the comparison withGermans in Utrecht. Utrecht was simi-lar to Rotterdam in a number of ways. Ittoo was connected to Germany by waterand rail, and, just like Rotterdam, it hada long history of German immigration(Rommes, 1998). This tradition origi-nated from Utrecht’s location at abranch of the river Rhine, which gavethe city easy access to the German

hinterland. Large vessels could sail fromCologne to Utrecht, where goods weretranshipped into smaller boats for distri-bution within the Netherlands. ButUtrecht was different from Rotterdamin one important respect, and thismakes the Utrecht case particularlysuited for comparison with Rotterdam.Although it became the centre of theDutch railway system in the second halfof the XIXth century, Utrecht was andremained a much smaller city thanRotterdam and more provincial. Itsbasic economic function was that of aregional centre, providing smaller citiesand the surrounding countryside withgoods and services that were not avai-lable there. There were two other diffe-rence. In first place, whereas the numberof German immigrants to Rotterdamrose in the second half of the nineteenthcentury, the same was not true forUtrecht. The relative number declined,in line with developments in the rest ofthe Netherlands. Secondly, the sex-ratiowithin the German population inUtrecht was 1.3 in 1850 and this didnot change much in the followingdecades. In Rotterdam, as we haveshown, this ratio fell from 2.2 to 1.2.

The differences in the urban opportu-nity structure had important conse-quences for the position of Germanimmigrants in the labour market in thetwo cities.

German men in Rotterdam and inUtrecht worked in industry; Germanwomen worked as domestic servants.Both in Utrecht and in Rotterdam indus-try was less important for German immi-grants than for the male population atlarge. In Utrecht German men concen-trated mainly in stucco-work and filemaking. In other occupations, such as thebooming cigar industry and in the

38


03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 38

39


production of textile and clothing,German immigrants were conspicuouslyabsent. Finally, German women, as aresult of their strong position in thestoneware trade, were less well repre-sented as domestics (30% against 66% inRotterdam). Both in Rotterdam and inUtrecht German women were well repre-sented in catering, which included prosti-tution. In Rotterdam, German men weremuch more concentrated in transport. InUtrecht “transport” meant Germansworking for the railways, whereas inRotterdam this category consisted mainlyof casual workers in the harbour. InUtrecht trade was the dominant sectorfor men and women. It is important tonote that within “trade” Germans inUtrecht (women as well as men) werealmost exclusively active in retail, andvirtually absent in wholesale trade andtrade administration (e.g. clerks). Withinretail they were concentrated in twoniches: 1) the stoneware trade (35% of allGermans). All stoneware traders inUtrecht were German and there were nonon-Germans active in this field; 2) retailtrade in ready-to-wear clothing (20% ofall Germans). Almost all large textilestores were owned by German entrepre-neurs, who partly hired German person-nel. In Rotterdam, trade was a men’sdomain and consisted to a great extent ofinternational transit trade. In other wordsthe typical German commercial occupa-tion in Utrecht was shop-assistant orstreet vendor, whereas in Rotterdam he(women were absent) would work as aclerk in the office of a trading firmspecialised in import and export.

Origin and migration patterns of theGerman immigrants in Utrecht

If we take a look at the map 3, itbecomes clear that German immigrants

in Utrecht did generally come from thesame regions as those in Rotterdam, withone striking exception. A very large partof the Germans in Utrecht came from theWesterwald in Nassau.

Comparing the geographical distribu-tion of Germans in Utrecht and Rotter-dam at this very general level, however,hides a number of important differences.These come forward when we link originwith occupation. In contrast to Rotter-dam, a significant number of Germansin Utrecht can be characterised as niche-bound chain immigrants. These aregroups of people from a well-definedrestricted area of origin, often sharingthe same occupation. The best exampleof this network mode of migration is thestoneware trade by peddlers from theWesterwald. These peddlers, both menand women, constituted 35% of allGermans in Utrecht. The shopkeepersand their employees (20% of allGermans in Utrecht) came fromMünsterland. This was a large area thatspread out across Westfalia, Oldenburgand Hannover. Since they did not comefrom a well-defined restricted area oforigin they do not fit well within thecategory of niche-bound chain immi-grants. Less visible in the map are themale file makers from Remscheid andsurroundings, stucco-workers fromOldenburg and retail traders from Sauer-land (each constituting some 5% of allGermans). The rest of the Germans aremore scattered, resembling the overallRotterdam picture. Both cities show aconcentration of immigrants from thepoint at which the Rhine enters theNetherlands; a region commonly re-ferred to as Kleefsland. When the mapfor the Germans in Utrecht is split bygender it becomes clear that the impor-tance of “Kleefsland” is for a large part

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 39

40


Map. 3 Origin of German migrants in Utrecht, 1849-1879

Commentary 1: The figures between brackets areobtained if the category 'unknown' is omitted.

Commentary 2: For Utrecht it is impossible todistinguish between retail and wholesale on the basisof occupational titles. Contextual informationsuggests that there were some wholesale traders, butnot many.

Commentary 3: The sector transport in Utrechtis dominated by the railways, whereas in Rotterdamthe occupations in this sector were related to theharbour.

Rotterdam Utrecht Sector German men German women German men German women Industry 24 (27) 1 (3) 37 0 Trade, retail 10 (11) 1 (3) 44 52 Trade, wholesale 9 (11) 0 (0) Trade, administration 13 (15) 0 (0) 0 0 Transport 17 (20) 0 (0) 10 0 Entertainment/catering 5 (6) 12 (28) 2 6 Domestic servants 4 (5) 28 (66) 1 30 Rest 4 (5) 0 (0) 6 12 Unknown 14 58 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 N= 203 180 922 339

Tab. 4 Occupational distribution of German men and women in Rotterdam (1870-1879) and in Utrecht(1849-1879)

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 40

41


accounted for by female immigrants.The German domestic servants inUtrecht mainly came from this area.

In the Rotterdam case we compared theoccupation and place of birth of theimmigrant with that of the head of thefirst household that he or she enteredupon arrival. We did so in order to findindications for the existence of networks.In the Utrecht case we have more data oneach immigrant. These data reveal thatthe comparison we chose for Rotterdamonly indicates part of the networks. Thenumerous shop assistants in Utrecht, forexample, lived in large boarding houses.The large boarding houses of the variousGerman owned stores gave room andboard to hundreds of shop assistants—both men and women—over a period ofthirty years. The boarding houses wereowned by the employers of the shop assis-tants, but these owners did not live there.The head of the household, as indicatedin the population registers, was forinstance a Dutch pub owner. A Germanshop assistant would show up as a non-network immigrant if we made the samecomparison as we did for Rotterdam,because he neither originated from thesame region or work in the same profes-sion as the head of his first household. Infact he, however, was part of a networkbecause he shared his origin and hisprofession both with his employer andwith his co-residing fellow shop assistantsin the same boarding house.

In the case of the other large group inUtrecht, the stoneware traders from theWesterwald, we also find that thecomparison between the immigrantsoccupation and place of birth and thoseof the head of the first household, revealonly part of the networks. The stonewaretraders lived concentrated in a smallnumber of adjacent streets and blind

alleys. The houses in these streets wereoften so small that the chances that anewcomer would move in to live with aco-ethnic or anyone else were slim. Thestoneware traders lived very close to oneanother, often as neighbours, but not inthe same house.

In the Rotterdam case we found that 25to 36% of the immigrants could beconsidered classical chain immigrants. InUtrecht, 70 tot 75% of the immigrants fitinto this model.

EXPLAINING DIFFERENT PATTERNS

From the above it is clear that bothRotterdam and Utrecht attracted Germanimmigrants from roughly the same area oforigin. Since they were both connectedwith the German hinterland via theRhine River, this should not surprise us.What is striking is the fact that these citiesdiffered sharply when we look at themode of migration. In Utrecht personalnetwork migration clearly dominated; inRotterdam organisational and especiallynon-network migration prevailed. Thecomparison between the Rotterdam andthe Utrecht case suggests that three expla-nations, that are not mutually exclusive,might account for the different modes ofmigration to these cities:

- Diverging opportunity structures,- the period under study,- the path dependency of German

migration to various Dutch citiesAd 1: As we have argued, from the

1860s onwards Rotterdam differed frommany other Dutch cities because it was adynamic port city with vital transit func-tions between the German hinterland(especially the Ruhr area) and the outsideworld. Utrecht was also a trading city, butits trade, being primarily geared towardsthe surrounding area, was more limited

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 41

42


in scope (Schrover, 2000a, 285-286).Although Germans were concentrated inthe trading sector in both towns, thedifference was that the traders in Utrechtwere confined to retail (shops keepersand trade in stoneware), whereas inRotterdam most of them worked forinternational trading firms. The largerand expanding possibilities in Rotterdamwill have attracted a different set ofimmigrants, with a much more diversbackground, than the more restrictedopportunities in Utrecht. Still, it is stri-king that in Rotterdam virtually no traceswere found of the niches that manifestedthemselves so clearly in Utrecht.

Ad 2: This leads us to the second possi-ble explanation, which may go hand inhand with the previous one: the diffe-rences in the time period. For Utrecht theyears 1849-1879 were chosen as the unitof analysis. For Rotterdam we restrictedourselves to 1870-1879. We know frommore general analyses of migration in theXIXth century, as well as from specific casestudies (Lucassen, 1987; Schrover,2001a; Cottaar & Lucassen, 2001), thatniches, characterised by seasonal labour,dissolved at the end of the XIXth century.It is therefore possible that the results forUtrecht, being partly based on an earlierperiod, reflect the end of the ancienrégime migration system, whereas thedecade we took for Rotterdam marks thebeginning of a new one, in which organi-sational and non-network migrationwere more important. The change inmigration modes may furthermore havetaken place earlier in Rotterdam becauseof the structural changes in the urbaneconomy that took shape from the 1860sonwards.

This hypothesis is supported by data onAmsterdam. For Amsterdam we used thealiens registers, in which immigrants were

registered on the moment of their arrival.In 1852, 2155 new immigrants came toAmsterdam, 62% of whom came fromGerman areas (Lucassen, 2001). Leavingaside German sailors, who only passedthrough, there were 643 German immi-grants. In contrast to the situation inRotterdam twenty years later, a number ofchain immigrants can be traced amongthem: 15% are plasterers from Olden-burg, 2% stoneware traders, 4% bakersfrom Hannover (mainly Ost-Friesland),and 4% shopkeepers and shop assistantsfrom Münsterland. In total 30% of allthese immigrants can be allocated to animmigrant niche. That is more than inRotterdam in the 1870s, but significantlyless than in Utrecht in the period 1849-1879. In order to further test our hypo-thesis, we therefore broke down themigration to Utrecht into two time peri-ods; 1850-1859 and 1860-1879 (Map 4).

When the geographical origins of theGerman immigrants to Utrecht in thefirst decade are compared with those inthe later period two things stand out. Inthe second period the migration fromMünsterland became more important.Moreover, there is no discontinuation ofthe earlier migration patterns; areas thatwere important in the first decade,remained important in the secondperiod. The difference in time perioddoes therefore not explain the diffe-rence between the two cities.

Ad 3: This brings us to the third expla-nation for the difference between Rotter-dam and Utrecht, which is the pathdependency of migration patterns from anearlier period onwards. Migration in anearlier period may have determined thenature of the migration in a later period.Lack of studies makes this hypothesis hardto substantiate for the Rotterdam case7.The continuous increase in the number of

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 42

43


German immigrants in Rotterdam—contrary to the national trend—and thedramatic change in the sex-ratio from 2.2to 1.2, however suggests that if their wasan older pattern it is likely that it wasbroken in the period we studied.

For Utrecht path dependency can beshown to have played a role. The large-scale migration of Westerwalderstoneware traders started around 1800,stimulated by a number of institutionalchanges, such as the ridding of traderestrictions, improvement in transportand the abolition of guild regulations8. In1806 about one hundred stonewaretraders from the Westerwald were regis-tered in Utrecht. If we include children,the total number of Westerwalders at thatmoment was twice as large. The concen-tration of Westerwalders that we foundin Utrecht in the second half of thecentury can be seen as the result of this

earlier migration. The presence of a largegroup, and the concentrated residentialpattern generated an independentdynamic in the migration process thattranscended the trade possibilities andthe opportunity structure of Utrecht.The existence of a Westerwalder commu-nity in Utrecht was the reason moreWesterwalders moved to this town.

CONCLUSION

Like in London and New York, (Panayi,1995; Nadel, 1990) the Germans in XIXth

century Rotterdam and Utrecht did notform a homogeneous group. Althoughthe German population of both townswas heterogeneous, there were differencesbetween the two towns. Whereas inRotterdam migrants made a living in thecatering industry, transport, and whole-sale trade, in Utrecht Germans wereconcentrated in industry and especially in

Map. 4 Origin of German immigrans in Utrecht. Comparison between 1850-1859 and 1860-1879

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 43

44


retail trade. This is in keeping with thedifferences in the opportunity structure ofRotterdam (international transit harbour)and Utrecht (provincial service town) andas such these findings are not surprising.

Much more striking are the differencesin the way the migration of these Germanswas patterned and channelled. In Utrechtabout half of the Germans were concen-trated in a small number of niches, accor-ding to the classic chain migration pattern.Rotterdam on the other hand offers amuch more dispersed picture, with vir-tually no combinations of occupationaland regional clustering. These non-network migration patterns are of specialinterest, because they touch a sore spot ofthe much used migration typologyproposed by Charles Tilly in 1978. More-over, it is a reminder that we should becareful not to view every migration modeas deeply embedded in personal networks.Our case studies have made clear thatthere is life outside the network. The ques-tion then is, what kind of life? In ourthree-fold “space, time and mode” typol-ogy we suggest that it might be useful tomake a distinction within migrationmodes between network, organisationaland non-network migration.

By proposing our more differentiatedtypology we are aware this can easily leadto a rigid and static approach to the veryvolatile and changing nature of the migra-tion phenomenon. Thus individualmigrants cannot only turn from local intointernational migrants (and back) or fromtemporary workers into settlers, but alsooften “move” between several modes inthe course of their life. One could thinkof a historical evolution of migrationflows, beginning with “solitary” or even“career” moves which with time, giveorigin to other modes, including chains.Our typology is only meant to include the

full range of possibilities. It can serve as atool to enlarge our understanding ofdifferent types and modes in specifichistorical and local contexts.

It may be clear that the concept oforganisational migration is inspired byTilly’s definition of career migration.Tilly applied his definition of careermigration mainly to upper segments ofsociety and—as the term “career”already suggests—to people who usemigration for upward social and occupa-tional mobility9. By broadening thedefinition to all migrants who are partof these kind of occupational networks,an important part of the Germans inRotterdam can be categorised as suchand are thus accounted for in our typo-logy. Especially those working as clerksand assistants in wholesale and interna-tional trading firms fit our definition oforganisational immigrants. However, italso applies to apprentices in variouscrafts (tailors, bakers, butchers etc.). Allof them were aware of specific possibili-ties in certain Dutch cities and did notnecessarily need personal contacts andsocial networks to migrate. In the case ofRotterdam, and to a lesser extent alsoUtrecht, information about the oppor-tunities of the urban labour market tra-velled over water, via the Rhine. Itcannot be a coincidence that mostimmigrants in both cities came from theRhine basin. The river and its manytributaries thus not only functioned as alogistic but also as an informationnetwork. Although information aboutpossibilities may have been “in the air”in the second half of the XIXth century, itis also possible that employers in Rotter-dam explicitly tried to recruit workersby putting adds in German newspapersor by transferring personnel from oneestablishment to another.

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 44

45


Finally, our typology leaves room forimmigrants who move independent with-out relying on distinct personal networks,and who do not fit in organised occupa-tional structures. Like organisationalimmigrants, they are aware of the possi-bilities that the labour market offers attheir destination, but instead of specificknowledge, they rely on general informa-tion. Female domestics, people workingin the catering business and those wor-king in the transport sector fall in thiscategory. They migrate on the basis of theidea that there is always work to found ina large and booming city. A town likeUtrecht would be less likely to attract thistype of “adventurous” immigrants.

This takes us to the last issue we want todiscuss, which is why migration scholarshave focussed so much on chain migra-tion and have disregarded organisationaland non-network migration. It seems tous that there are two related causes. Firstof all, chain migrants fit the predilectionof many (especially American) historiansfor ethnic phenomena. Since the 1970smany community studies have beenpublished about various immigrantgroups in American cities (Gabaccia,1998). In this “ethnicity forever” mood,as Ewa Morawska (1990; see alsoLucassen & Lucassen, 1997, 23) labelledit, attention was quite selectively focussedon manifestations of networks and organ-ised ethnicity. Patterns that did not fit thismould were grossly neglected and mostlyleft aside (for some notable exceptions seeNelli, 1970, 25 and 53; Barton, 1975;Green, 1997, 287; Menjívar, 2000). The

second cause, in our view, is that studiesthat analyse migration or immigration ina more general way, and are not restrictedto one or a few ethnic groups, are not verypopular among ethnic historians. Exem-plary works, such as The other Bostoniansby Stephen Thernstrom (1973), ob-viously did not have the appeal of the cartload of community studies that waspublished in the late 1970s and 1980s inthe United States. This failure of studentsof migration to integrate the methods andinsights on geographical mobility thatwere generated by urban historians,demographers and social geographers,goes a long way in explaining the lack ofinterest for life outside the chain migra-tion networks (a notable exception isMoch, 1992). The migration modes wecame across in our study of Rotterdamand Utrecht, and which will also be pre-sent in many other cities, show that it istime for students of migration to reorientand produce more balanced accounts ofmigration and immigration histories.

Clé LESGERDepartment of History

University of [email protected]

Leo LUCASSENDepartment of History

University of AmsterdamMarlou SCHROVER

International Institut of Social HistoryAmsterdam

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 45

46


1. This article is a revised version of a paper titled“Fragmented chains”. Changing patterns inGerman migration to the Netherlands 1850-1900’, by Clé Lesger and Leo Lucassen presentedat the HSN-workshop on Large Databases:Results and Best practices (Amsterdam, Interna-tional Institute of Social History 17-18 May2001). We thank Jan Kok, Leslie Page Moch andMarcello Borges for their critical remarks on anearlier version.

2. In 1990 Tilly proposed a slightly differenttypology, distinguishing between colonising,coerced, circular, chain and career migration(Tilly, 1990, 88).

3. The Rotterdam data are part of the pioneer-project on “Immigration to the Netherlands1860-1960” (www.hum.uva.nl/pion-imm). Theproject was started by Kasja Weenink, whoselected the Germans from the population regis-ters. The Historical Sample of the Netherlands(HSN) then created the databases. The project iscontinued by Henk Delger.

4. This sample consist of about 40% of allGermans in that age cohort who came to Rotter-dam in the 1870s.

5. Many more organisations are mentioned in theDeutsche Wochenzeitung für den Niederlanden(Amsterdam 1893-1942) which we consultedextensively.

6. Compare: Kamphoefner (1995) 258-272, 263.

7. We only know that the percentage of Germanmarriage partners in the XVIIIth century increasedfrom 6,4% in the beginning of the century to12,4 at the end. The precise origin in Germany,however, is still unknown (Bonke, 1996, 77). ForAmsterdam in the early modern period moreresearch had been done (Knotter & Van Zanden,1987). These authors, although these use rathervast geographic units of analysis, come to theconclusion that most immigrants came throughspecific occupationally-determined chains.

8. This is supported by a very similar develop-ment in the niche formation of straw hat makersfrom Belgium and German pedlars and shop-keepers in the Netherlands. In both cases thepioneers of these niches started out in the lastdecades of the eighteenth century in the provinceof Friesland, where the guilds were much weakerthan in the rest of the Dutch Republic (Cottaar& Lucassen, 2001; Oberpenning, 1996).

9. This restriction is even more evident fromTilly’s definition in 1990: “Career migration,finally, characterizes individuals and householdsthat move in response to opportunities to changeposition within or among large structures, suchas corporations, states, and professional labormarkets.” (Tilly, 1990, 88)

BBIIBBLLIIOOGGRRAAPPHHIICCAALL RREEFFEERREENNCCEESS

ALEXANDER, June Granatir (1981), “StayingTogether: Chain Migration and Patternsof Slovak Settlement in Pittsburgh priorto World War I”, Journal of AmericanEthnic History, 56-83.

BARTON, Josef J. (1975), Peasants andStrangers. Italians, Rumanians and Slovaks inan American City, 1890-1950, CambridgeMass., Harvard University Press.

BECHELLONI, Antonio (1988), « Uneenquête sur les immigrés de la premièregénération », 83-102, in L'immigrationitalienne en France dans les années 20 ,Paris, Éditions du CEDEI.

BONKE, Hans (1996), De kleyne mast van deHollandse coopsteden. Stadsontwikkeling inRotterdam 1572-1795, Amsterdam,Amsterdamse Historische Reeks.

BORGES, Marcelo J. (2000), “MigrationSystems in Southern Portugal: Regionaland Transatlantic Circuits of LaborMigration in the Algarve (XVIIIth-XXth centuries)”, International Review ofSocial History, 45, 171-208.

CHOTKOWSKI, Margaret (2000), “ItalianImmigrants in the Netherlands in theXIXth Century: Migration and Settlementof the Chimneysweepers and PlasterFigure Makers”, Paper presented at the

NOTES

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 46

47


European Social Science History Conference,Amsterdam, April 2000.

COTTAAR, Annemarie, LUCASSEN, Leo(2001), “Naar de laatste Parijse mode.Luikse strohoedenmakers in Nederland1781-1900”, Studies over de sociaal-economische geschiedenis van Limburg/ Jaar-boek van het Sociaal Historisch Centrum voorLimburg, Maastricht, Sociaal HistorischCentrum Limburg.

EIJL, Corrie van, LUCASSEN Leo (2001),“Tellen en geteld worden. Vreemdelingenin de Nederlandse volks- en beroepstellin-gen (1899-1971)” 159-184, in Nederlandeen eeuw geleden geteld. Een terugblik op desamenleving rond 1900, Peter Doorn &Jacques van Maarseveen (eds), Amster-dam, Stichting Beheer IISG.

FONTAINE, Laurence (1996), History of Pedlarsin Europe, Durham, Duke University Press.

GABACCIA, Donna (1988), Militants andImmigrants. Rural Sicilians Become Ameri-can workers, New Brunswick and London,Rutgers University Press.

GABACCIA, Donna (1998), “Do We StillNeed Immigration History?”, PolishAmerican Studies LV, no. 1, 45-68.

GREEN, Nancy (1997), Ready-to-Wear. Ready-to-Work. A Century of Industry and Immi-grants in Paris and New York, Durham andLondon, Duke University Press.

HEIJS, Eric (1995), Van vreemdeling totNederlander. De verlening van het Neder-landerschap aan vreemdelingen 1813-1992,Amsterdam, het Spinhuis.

HENKES, Barbara (1998), “Gedeeld Duits-zijnaan de Maas. Gevestigd Deutschtum enDuitse nieuwkomers in de jaren 1900-1940”, 218-239, in Vier eeuwen migratie.Bestemming Rotterdam, Paul van de Laar etal. (eds), Rotterdam, Monditaal Publishing.

HOCHSTADT, Steve (1999), Migration andModernity. Migration in Germany, 1820-1989, Ann Arbor, University of MichiganPress.

HOERDER, Dirk (1997), “SegmentedMacrosystems and Networking Individuals:

the Balancing Functions of MigrationProcesses'” 73-84, in Migration, MigrationHistory, History. Old Paradigms and NewPerspectives, Jan Lucassen & Leo Lucassen(eds), Bern, Peter Lang.

JACKSON, James (1997), Migration andUrbanization in the Ruhr Valley, 1821-1914, Boston, Humanities Press.

JOHN, Michael, LICHTBLAU, Albert (1993),“Vienna around 1900: Images, Expecta-tions, and Experiences of Labor Immi-grants”, 52-81, in Distant Magnets. Expec-tations and Realities in the ImmigrantExperience, 1840-1930, Dirk Hoerder &Horst Rössler (eds), New York andLondon, Holmes and Meier.

KAMPHOEFNER, Walter D. (1995), “Paths ofUrbanization: St. Louis in 1860”, 258-272, in Emigration and Settlement Patternsof German Communities in North America,Eberhard Reichmann, LaVern J. Rippleyen Jörg Nagler (eds), Indianapolis, IndianaUniversity Printing Services.

KNOTTER, Ad (1991), Economische transfor-matie en stedelijke arbeidsmarkt: Amster-dam in de tweede helft van de negentiendeeeuw, Zwolle, Waanders.

KNOTTER, Ad, ZANDEN, Jan Luiten van(1987) “Immigratie en arbeidsmarkt inAmsterdam in de 17e eeuw”, Tijdschriftvoor Sociale Geschiedenis, 13, 403-430.

LAAR, Paul van de (2000), Stad van formaat.Geschiedenis van Rotterdam in de Negen-tiende en twintigste eeuw, Zwolle, Waan-ders.

LEE, Everett S. (1969), “A Theory of Migra-tion”, 282-297, in Migration, J.A. Jackson(ed.), Cambridge Mass., Harvard Univer-sity Press.

LEWIS, G.J. (1982), Human Migration. AGeographical Perspective, London, CroomHelm.

LOURENS, Piet, LUCASSEN, Jan (1999),Arbeitswanderung und berufliche Spezial-isierung: die lippischen Ziegler im 18.und19. Jahrhundert, Osnabrück, Rasch.

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 47

LUCASSEN, Jan (1987), Migrant Labour inEurope 1600-1900, London, Croom Helm.

LUCASSEN, Jan, LUCASSEN, Leo (1997),“Introduction”, 9-38, in Migration,Migration History, History. Old Paradigmsand New Perspectives, Jan Lucassen & LeoLucassen (eds), Bern, Peter Lang.

LUCASSEN, Leo (2001), “Het einde van eenmigratieregime: buitenlanders in Hollandgedurende de 19e eeuw”, Holland.Historisch Tijdschrift 33, nr 3, 190-211.

LUCASSEN, Leo (2002), “Bringing StructureBack in. Economic and Political Determi-nants of Immigration in Dutch Cities(1920-1940)”, Social Science History,forthcoming.

LUCASSEN, Leo, VRIES, Boudien de (2001),“The Rise and Fall of a West EuropeanTextile-Worker Migration System: Leiden,1586-1700”, 23-42, in Les ouvriers qualifiésde l’industrie (XVIe-XXe siècles). Formation,emploi, migrations, Gérard Gayot &Philippe Minard (eds), Lille, UniversitéCharles-de-Gaulle, Revue du Nord.

MACDONALD, John S., MACDONALD,Leatrice D. (1964), “Chain Migration,Ethnic Neighborhood Formation, andSocial Networks”, Milbank MemorialFund Quarterly, 42, 82-97.

MANNEKE, Nelleke (1998), “Reacties vanRotterdamse burgers op de migratie rond1900”, 172-186, in Vier eeuwen migratie.Bestemming Rotterdam, Paul van de Laar etal. (eds), Rotterdam, Monditaal Publishing

MENJOT, Denis, PINOL, Jean-Luc (éd.)(1996), Les immigrants et la ville. Insertion,intégration, discrimination (XIIe-XXe siècles),Paris, L'Harmattan.

MENJÍVAR, Cecilia (2000), Fragmented Ties.Salvadoran Immigrant Networks in America ,Berkely, University of California Press.

MOCH, Leslie Page (1992), Moving Europeans.Migration in Western Europe since 1650,Bloomington, Indiana University Press.

MORAWSKA, Ewa (1990), “The Sociologyand Historiography of Immigration”,

187-240, in Immigration Reconsidered.History, Sociology and Politics, VirginiaYans-McLaughlin (ed.), New York,Oxford University Press.

MOYA, Jose C. (1998), Cousins andStrangers. Spanish Migration in BuenosAires 1850-1930, Berkeley, CaliforniaUniversity Press.

NADEL, Stanley (1990), Little Germany.Ethnicity, Religion, and Class in New YorkCity, 1845-80, Urbana and Chicago,University of Illinois Press.

NELLI, Humbert S. (1970), Italians in Chicago,1880-1930. A study in Ethnic Mobility, NewYork, Oxford University Press.

NUSTELING, H.P.H. (1974), De Rijnvaart inhet tijdperk van stoom en steenkool, 1831-1914: een studie van het goederenvervoer ende verkeerspolitiek in de Rijndelta en hetachterland, mede in verband met deopkomst van de spoorwegen en de concurren-tie van vreemde zeehavens, Amsterdam,Holland Universiteits Pers.

OBERPENNING, Hannelore (1996), Migra-tion und Fernhandel im Tödden-System.Wanderhändler aus dem nördlichenMünsterland im mittleren und nördlichenEuropa, Osnabrück, Rasch.

PANAYI, Panikos (1995), German Immigrantsin Britain during the XIXth century, 1815-1914, Oxford/ Washington DC, Berg.

PARK, Robert E., MILLER, Herbert A.(1921), Old World Traits Transplanted,New York & London, Harper.

PRICE, Charles A. (1963), Southern Euro-peans in Australia, Melbourne, OxfordUniversity Press.

RATH, Jan (ed.)(2000), Immigrant Businesses.The Economic, Political and Social Envi-ronment, Houndmills/New York,MacMillan.

ROMMES, Ronald (1998), Oost west thuisbest? Driehonderd jaar migratie enmigranten in de stad Utrecht (begin 16e-begin 19e eeuw), Amsterdam, StichtingAmsterdamse Historische Reeks.

48


03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 48

SCHAEPDRIJVER, Sophie de (1990), Elites forthe Capital? Foreign Migration to Mid-Nineteenth-Century Brussels, Amster-dam,Thesis Publishers.

SCHROVER, Marlou (2000a), “Potverkopers,vijlenkappers, wijkeliers en stukadoors.Nichevorming onder Duitse migranten inde negentiende-eeuwse stad Utrecht”,Tijdschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis, 27, nr.2, 281-305.

SCHROVER, Marlou, (2000b), “GermanCommunities in Nineteenth-CenturyUtrecht: Factors Influencing the Settle-ment Process”, IMIS-Beitrage, 14, 45-74.

SCHROVER, Marlou (2001a), “ImmigrantBusiness and Niche Formation in Histori-cal Perspective: the Netherlands in theNineteenth Century”, Journal of Ethnicand Migration Studies 27, nr. 2, 295-312.

SCHROVER, Marlou (2001b), “Women andLong Distance Trade Migration in theNineteenth-Century Netherlands” in,

Pamela Sharp (red.), Women, Gender andLabour Migration, London, Routledge,85-107.

THERNSTROM, Stephen (1973), The OtherBostonians. Poverty and Progress in theAmerican Metropolis, 1880-1970,Cambridge Mass., Harvard UniversityPress.

THOMAS, William J., ZNANIECKI, Florian(1918), The Polish Peasant in Europe andAmerica, Boston.

TILLY, Charles (1978), “Migration inModern European history”, 48-72, inHuman Migration. Patterns and Policies,William H. McNeill (ed.), Bloomington,Indiana University Press.

TILLY, Charles (1990), “TransplantedNetworks”, 79-95, in Immigration recon-sidered. History, sociology and politics,Virginia Yans-McLaughlin (ed.), NewYork, Oxford University Press.

49


SUMMARY

Germans in nineteenth century Rotterdamand Utrecht, like in London and New York,formed a heterogeneous group, but betweenthese cities some remarkable differences werefound. Not only did the diverging opportu-nity structures of these cities attract differenttypes of German migrants, with respect togender, origin and occupation. Much morestriking are the differences in the way themigration of these Germans was patternedand channelled. In Utrecht about half of theGermans were concentrated in a smallnumber of niches, according to the classicchain migration pattern. Rotterdam on theother hand offers a much more dispersedpicture, with virtually no combinations ofoccupational and regional clustering. These non-network migration patterns,which are often neglected by the literatureon chain migration, are of special interest,because it shows that we should be carefulnot to view every migration mode as deeply

embedded in personal networks. In ourthree-fold “space, time and mode” typologywe suggest that it might be useful to make adistinction within migration modes betweennetwork, organisational and non-networkmigration. The concept of organisationalmigration is broader than Charles Tilly's“career migration”, by which it was inspired.In our case it is not restricted to the middleand upper segments of society, but includesall migrants who are part of these kind ofoccupational networks. In the case ofRotterdam: especially those working asclerks and assistants in wholesale and inter-national trading firms, as well as apprenticesin various crafts (tailors, bakers, butchersetc.). All of them were aware of specificpossibilities in certain Dutch cities and didnot necessarily depend on personal contactsand social networks to migrate. Non-network migration, finally, refers to immigrantswho move independently without relying

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 49

50


À Rotterdam et Utrecht au XIXe siècle, commeà Londres ou New York, les Allemandsforment un groupe hétérogène. Pour autant,entre ces deux villes hollandaises, il est possiblede dégager des nuances notables. Certes lespossibilités différentes offertes par chacune descités attirent des types logiquement différentsd'immigrants allemands, du point de vue dusexe, des origines et des professions. Mais leplus frappant est l'opposition entre les modesmigratoires. A Utrecht, environ la moitié desAllemands sont concentrés dans un petitnombre de niches, conformément au modèlehabituel des chaînes migratoires. Rotterdamen revanche fournit un paysage plus dispersé,sans réel regroupement fondé sur l'activitéprofessionnelle ou l'origine régionale.Ces formes de migrations hors-réseau, quisont souvent sous-estimées par la littératurescientifique sur les chaînes migratoires, sonttout à fait passionnantes en ce qu'elles nousmontrent qu'il convient de se garder deconsidérer toute migration comme profondé-ment modelée par les réseaux personnels desindividus mobiles. Par notre typologie à troisdimensions – « espace, temps, mode » –, nousvoudrions suggérer combien serait utile dedistinguer au sein des modes migratoires lesmigration à réseau, les migrations organisa-tionnelles, enfin les migrations hors-réseau.Le concept de « migration organisationnelle »est plus large que la notion de « migration decarrière » développée par Charles Tilly et dont

elle s'inspire. Dans notre cas, elle ne se réduitpas aux couches intermédiaires et supérieuresde la société, mais comprend tous lesmigrants qui ont partie liée à ces sortes deréseaux professionnels. Ainsi à Rotterdam,ceux qui travaillent comme employé oucommis dans le commerce ou les firmes d'im-port-export, ainsi que les apprentis de multi-ples métiers (tailleurs, boulangers,bouchers…). Tous étaient au courant despossibilités spécifiques offertes par certainesvilles hollandaises et ne se reposaient pasnécessairement sur des contacts personnels oudes réseaux sociaux pour effectuer leur migra-tion. Quant aux migrations hors-réseaux,elles correspondent en définitive aux immi-grants qui se déplacent de manière autonomesans se reposer sur des réseaux personnelsparticuliers et qui n'entrent pas dans desstructures professionnelles organisées.Comme les précédents, ils sont avertis desperspectives que le marché du travail leuroffre sur leur lieu d'arrivée, mais cetteconnaissance reste générale, sans informationparticulière sur des domaines spécifiques. Lesservantes, les personnes employées dans lesecteur de la restauration ou des transportsentrent dans cette catégorie. Elles migrentparce qu'elles estiment qu'il y aura toujoursdu travail disponible dans une grande cité enexpansion. Il est évident qu'une ville commeUtrecht est moins susceptible d'attirer cegenre de migrants « aventureux ».

RÉSUMÉ

on distinct personal networks, and who donot fit in organised occupational structures.Like organisational immigrants, they areaware of the possibilities that the labourmarket offers at their destination, butinstead of specific knowledge, they rely ongeneral information. Female domestics,

people working in the catering business andthose working in the transport sector fall inthis category. They migrate on the basis ofthe idea that there is always work to foundin a large and booming city. A town likeUtrecht would be less likely to attract thistype of “adventurous” immigrants.

03-LES~1.QXD 20/04/2005 14:26 Page 50

Documents

IS THERE LIFE OUT SIDE THE MIGRANT NET W ORK? …home.kpn.nl/schro497/LesgerLucassenSchrover.pdf · con sidered a tran satlan tic m ove (P rice, 1963, 108; B arton , 1975, 49-50;