Michael J. Greenwood

Many, many papers and books have dealt with historical U.S. immigration from Europe. These contributions have made solid contributions and have greatly improved our understanding of why migration occurred from Europe to the Americas during the 19th and early 20th centuries. However, virtually all of these studies were concerned with the volume and rates of movement. Hatton and Williamson ask a much less studied question: “Who were the migrants?” “Who” could refer to numerous migrant characteristics, such as age, sex, occupations, and marital status.

I decided to study the migrant characteristics that I could extract from published U.S. immigration statistics. My first historical study concerns age composition.

Most historical studies use 12 European source countries as the origins of U.S. immigration because we have data for these countries. The data are not pristine. They are characterized by many problems that must be acknowledged and dealt with in some way or other.

For the 12 source countries, 3 consistent age groups are available for study annually for the period 1873-1898:

1. under 15,

2. 15-40, and

3. over 40.

The data indicate considerable differences in the age composition of U.S. immigration from the various countries. Note the differences across countries as well as the differences across time for a given country.

Table 1Age Composition of U.S. immigration from 12 source countries, 1873 and 1898_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CountryTotal Immigrants Percent aged 15-40 Percent aged over 40

1873-98 1873 1898 1873 1898 1873 1898Belgium 43,651 1,176 695 72.9 63.3 9.6 18.4Denmark 161,252 4,931 1,946 69.0 79.1 11.4 9.4France 142,810 14,798 1,990 64.8 72.7 19.1 15.9Germany 2,455,519 149,671 17,112 61.6 70.2 12.9 12.3Ireland 1,304,275 77,344 25,128 73.2 88.7 9.3 6.2Italy 834,202 8,757 58,613 67.4 64.2 15.8 15.4Netherlands 96,392 3,811 767 50.8 58.9 15.3 15.4Norway 330,054 16,247 4,938 46.7 79.6 29.7 10.2Spain 14,515 541 577 74.5 71.9 13.5 21.5Sweden 682,767 14,303 12,398 62.8 84.0 15.6 7.6Great Britain 1,502,759 89,482 12,893 62.8 67.1 14.3 15.9Portugal 22,759 24 1,717 70.8 63.1 16.7 12.6

Source: Bureau of Statistics (1903, 4358-4360).

1. Younger immigrants have more years to contribute to the U.S. economy (i.e., they have longer expected working lives).

2. Younger immigrants assimilate more rapidly, in part because they learn English more quickly.

3. Because they learn English more rapidly, their labor productivity and earnings also grow more rapidly. Thus, younger individuals not only contribute to the U.S. economy over a longer time period, but also they contribute more on an annual basis.

4. Birth rates of women are highest for roughly the same ages that migration propensities are highest. Thus, age in combination with sex increases the potential population of second generation immigrants.

5. Through the marriage market, even young male migrants may influence subsequent population growth.

6. Skill is a function of age, so older immigrants tend to arrive with higher skill levels.

7. Older immigrants who do not participate in the work force may constitute a burden.

8. Very young immigrants impose costs on society that are not recovered for some years. These costs are mainly due to education.

Dorothy Swain Thomas in her 1938 discussion of “age ” differentials argues that “of all the gaps in our knowledge of the operation of age-selective migration, the most important are:

1. Our lack of precise information as to the operation of varying economic and social structure upon age selection…

2. Our lack of precise information as to the operation of distance as a factor limiting or extending the range of age-selective migration…

3.Our lack of any information at all as to the operation of upswings and downswings in economic conditions upon age-selective migration.”

To this day, very little analytical work has ever been done to address these issues. Thus, I attack them in the context of historical U.S. immigration from Europe, where countries rather than communities provide the spatial dimension.

I estimate 3 models, one for the migration rate of the 15-40 age group, a second for the migration rate of the over 40 age group, and a third for composition (percentage of immigrants 15 and over who were 14-40).

Each models contains 3 sets of variables:

1. Differential economic opportunity,

2. Cost of migrating, and

3. Control variables.

1. Differential economic opportunity a. relative real wage, t-1 (i/US) b. relative growth of GDP (US/i) c. percent manufacturing d. percent agriculture

Cost of migrating a. total migration prior 2 years b. birthrate in i c. English spoken in i d. Southern Europe e. distance from i

Control variables a. population 15-39 of i

The marginal migrant

Table 2Means and Standard Deviations______________________________________________________________________________________Variable Mean Std. dev.Relative real wage, t-1 (i/US) 0.424 0.152Relative growth of GDP, avg. t-1 to t-3 (US/i) 1.020 0.035Percent manufacturing in i 0.237 0.068Percent agriculture in i 0.475 0.188Total migration prior 2 years (x103) 24.751 35.789Birthrate in i (per thousand) 31.612 4.465English spoken in i 0.167 0.373Southern Europe 0.250 0.434Distance from i to U.S. (x103) 3.670 0.315Population of i, 15-39 (x106) 6.192 6.084Population of i, over 39 (x106) 4.593 4.528Percent pop. 15 and over that was 15-39 (x102) 0.379 0.013Migration rate, 15-40 (x10-3) 5.210 7.490Migration rate, over 40 (x10-3) 0.844 1.158Percent of immigrants 15 and over that was 15-40 85.771 6.073

Sources: Relative (international) real wage (Williamson, 1995); relative growth of GDP (Maddison, 2003); percent manufacturing in i (Mitchell, 1992); percent agriculture in i (Mitchell); total migration prior 2 years (Bureau of Statistics, 1903); birthrate in i (Mitchell, 1992); population of i, and also by age (Mitchell, 1992); migration rate, by age (Bureau of Statistics, 1903; Mitchell, 1992). Annual data were developed by linear interpolation and, where necessary, by (backward) extrapolation.

Table 3Emigration rates and the age composition of U.S.-bound migrants 15 to 40 and over 40, 1873-1898: Hausman-Taylor instrumental variable estimates

Migration Rates Age Composition

Variable 15-40 Over 40 15-40Differential econ. Opportunity Relative real wage, t-1 (x1) -6.391 -4.657 13.653

(1.249) (4.836) (2.008) Relative growth of GDP (x1) 13.422 1.405 -6.473

(1.960) (1.120) (0.746) Percent manufacturing in i (x1) 2.602 -6.975 68.107

(0.264) (3.710) (4.995) Percent agriculture in i (x1) 12.820 -4.593 24.112

(2.472) (4.399) (3.068) Cost of Migrating Total migration prior 2 years (x2)

0.060 0.012 0.005

(5.718) (6.179) (0.410) Birthrate in i (x2) -0.632 -0.016 -1.106

(4.698) (0.587) (5.537) English spoken in i (z2) 9.061 1.480 -4.011

(2.378) (1.601) (0.424) Southern Europe (z1) -5.928 -1.156 3.829

(2.185) (1.835) (0.626) Distance from i (z1) 4.655 1.585 -1.789

(1.072) (1.516) (0.167)Control variables Population 15-39 (over 39) of i (x1)

-0.416 -0.129 0.060

(2.597) (2.530) (0.446) Constant (z1) -8.521 0.236 99.117

(0.514) (0.060) (2.521)

Test for exogeneity of HT instruments

0.570 0.999 0.829

Let’s summarize the findings along the lines of the issues raised by D. Thomas.

1. We lack precise information as to the operation of communities of varying economic and social structure upon age selection.

My findings:

a. Older potential migrants were discouraged by relatively well- developed manufacturing sectors in source countries.

b. Younger migrants tended to originate in source countries that were more agricultural.

c. Older migrants tended to come from less agriculturally oriented countries.

2. We lack precise information as to the operation of distance as a factor limiting or extending the range of age-selective migration.

My findings

a. Older migrants tended to come from more distant countries.

b. Younger migrants also tended to come from more distant countries, so composition was not much influenced by distance.

3. We lack any information at all as to the operation of upswings and downswings in economic conditions upon age-selective migration.

My findings

a. Both younger and older migrants responded to economic incentives, but in different ways:

i. Older potential migrants were discouraged from leaving high-wage countries.

ii. Younger persons responded strongly to superior job opportunities in the U.S.