The mobility transition revisited, 1500–1900: what the case of Europe can offer to global history

Abstract

Historians of migration have increasingly criticized the idea of a ‘mobility transition’, which assumed that pre-modern societies in Europe were geographically fairly immobile, and that people only started to move in unprecedented ways with the onset of modernization in the nineteenth century. In line with this critique, this article attempts to apply thorough quantitative tests to the available data. The focus is on ‘cross-community migration’, following Patrick Manning's argument that migrants moving over a cultural border are most likely to accelerate the rate of innovation. Six forms of migration are considered: emigration out of Europe, immigration from other continents, rural colonization of ‘empty spaces’, movements to large cities, seasonal migration, and the movement of sailors and soldiers. To illustrate regional variations, the examples of the Netherlands and Russia are contrasted. The reconstruction presented here is partial and preliminary, but it unequivocally shows that early modern Europe was much more mobile than modernization scholars allowed for. There was indeed a sharp increase in the level of migration after 1850, but it was due to improvements in transport rather than to modernization in a more general sense. This model has been elaborated for Europe but it can also be applied to other parts of the world and can hopefully contribute to the debate on the ‘Great Divergence’ between Europe and Asia.

Which transition comes first? Urban and demographic transitions in Belgium and Sweden

“…First, the evolutionist perspective that considers past societies as immobile has been questioned (Skeldon 1997). Historical inaccuracies, especially regarding the assumed low and inconsequential mobility of ancient or developing societies, have been identified (de Vries 1984;Lucassen and Lucassen 2009). Second, urbanisation may result from the vital transition, i.e., from a difference of natural increase between urban and rural areas (de Vries 1984(de Vries , 1990.…”

Access to marriage and reproduction among migrants in Antwerp and Stockholm. A longitudinal approach to processes of social inclusion and exclusion, 1846–1926

“…According to estimations made by Jan Lucassen and Leo Lucassen, the total number of urban in-migrants in Western European cities with more than 10,000 inhabitants increased from about 13 million in the period 1800 -1850 to 42 million in the latter part of the nineteenth century (Lucassen & Lucassen, 2009, p. 362). The largest part of these urban in-migrants were still recruited from within the direct rural vicinity of the city (Moch, 2003;Pooley & Turnbull, 1997), but the numbers of international migrants in Western European cities started to rise steadily (Lucassen, 2005;Lucassen & Lucassen, 2009). Especially port cities attracted large numbers of migrants with various socio-cultural and geographic backgrounds (Lee & Lawton, 2002).…”

Rural crisis and rural exodus? Local migration dynamics during the crisis of the 1840s in Flanders (Belgium)

“…While such revisions have helped to introduce more nuance into the view of nineteenth-century migrations, much is still unclear as regards the precise relationship between the selectivity of migration and the disruptive economic, social and political changes that were taking place in this period, including the disintegration of rural livelihoods, and rising levels of mobility, urbanization and pauperization (Lucassen and Lucassen, 2009;Lees and Lees, 2010). The extent of migration selectivity is likely to have increased with the costs of moving and decreased with the intensity of push forces (Clark, 1972;Chiswick, 1999).…”