RS 10-26-2000

 

Colin Pooley and Jane Turnbull, Migration and Mobility in Britain Since the Eighteenth Century (London: UCL Press, 1998)

 

This is a revisionist account that emphasizes the continuity and stability of migration patterns from the 18^th to the 20^th century, which calls into question various arguments that claim industrialization, urbanization, and “modernization” went hand in hand with accelerated and increased flows of migration, an exodus from the countryside to cities, the greater mobility of males compared to females, and so forth.

 

Findings and Conclusions

 

Number of moves:  the average number of moves during a persons life increased from the 18^th to the 20^th century.

 

1750-1819	1890-1930
3.3	7.0

However, the magnitude of this difference is overstated, they argue, because 1) short distance moves were under recorded in the 18^th and early 19^th century documents and 2) the difference seems smaller than might be expected when one takes into account the vastly improved transportation networks of the post 1890 period.

 

One thing more that I believe is important: the increased longevity of people’s lives in the 20^th century as compared with the 18^th century and first three quarters of the 19^th century.  The longer one lives, the more time he/she has to move.

Distance moved: the predominant pattern is that of frequent moves for short distances within the same region throughout the period.  Although the proportion of long-distance moves increased over time, it is the continuing, overall stability in the frequency of short-distance moves that remains predominant and stable—and striking, again, in view of much improved transportation.

 

Who typically moved? Or the typical migrant:  In the 18^th and 19^th centuries, the typical migrants were young adults—young women and men—who moved more often in family groups and less often on their own.

 

Gender: There was no pronounced difference by gender; men did not tend to move over longer distances than women.  In terms of the distances moved, and the characteristics of age, marital status, and position in the family of origin, female and male migrants resembled each other closely.

 

Stage migration: did longer distance moves tend to come in stages whereby migrants moved from smaller to larger communities in a sequence of moves “up the urban hierarchy?” Interestingly, this is a theory that Pooley embraced earlier in his joint work with Lawton, in Britain 1750-Present: An Historical Geography (1992).  Here Pooley concludes that this theory is borne out only for London.  In all other regions it is disconfirmed by the evidence he’s used which shows that moves from larger to smaller settlements were nearly as frequent as moves from smaller to larger settlements.

 

Rural to Urban migration: To what extent were rural inhabitants the mobile sector of the population and their moves were always toward the cities, whereas city folk stayed put.

 

The evidence shows that rural folk and city folk were more or less equally prone to move.  And the authors insist on the whole range of migratory paths as being important as compared to the notion that there was a rural exodus and that moves were unidirectional, from countryside to city.  Rather they show the relative importance of 1) rural to rural moves 2) rural to urban 3) urban to urban 4) urban to rural

 

Migration and Counter migration flows:  the evidence shows that Newton’s law of physics works also in migration: for every migratory current flowing into an area there was a counter current flowing out.

 

Reasons for migration resulted from many, interacting factors:

 

Employment:  the single most important consideration was to secure employment, but there were qualifications:

• Among the 16,000 case histories studied, only 1/3 of all moves for employment reasons were solely motivated by the search for work; by and large the decision to move was the result of multiple considerations concerning not only work but marriage, suitable housing, and other factors.

• The regional character of most moves to secure employment was partially determined by the high cost of longer distance moves during “good times.”  During “bad times” and high unemployment, psychological forces induced people to “stay put” in communities where they were known, where they might receive aid, etc.
• Skilled workers tended to move further a field than less skilled workers; farmers and agricultural labors moved less than any other occupational group.

 

The Influence of Family Structures and Family Obligations:

 

• The decline of the mean family size after the 1880s (on average fewer children were being born in families) meant that the smaller family unit was more likely to move over greater distances.
• The swelling of domestic service in the Victorian period meant that the moves of young women in service were increasingly determined by the movements of their employers.

 

The Influence of the Life Course:

 

• Marriage (a major event in the life cycle or life course of each individual)

 

The frequency of moves related to marriage increased from the 18^th to the 20^th century.  Whereas only 4 out of every 10 couples moved upon marriage in the 18^th century, nearly 7 out of every 10 moved in the period 1890-1930. 

 

Underlying factors in play here were numerous:  1) the increased supply of inexpensive housing 2) higher real wages after the 1870s 3) a greater voice for women in such decisions

 

• “Retirement,” i.e., the partial or full withdrawal from normal work:

 

The proportion of moves made at the retirement stage of the life course increased from the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries to the early twentieth century.  Whereas only 1/3 of women and men at “retirement” age moved in the early period, fully ¾ moved to a new location in the later period (1890-1930).

 

This, I would argue, is problematic because of the effect of increased longevity over time.  Because more people survived to “retirement” age in the 20^th century as compared to the 18^th century, more people in the 20^th century could re-locate in their retirement years. Hence the effect of increased longevity has to be taken into account when making the comparisons to isolate at least two factors:

 

Number of moves among people alive at retirement age

=  propensity to relocate at retirement age

+  the effect of average longevity at a given period