Why they moved – emigration from the Swedish countryside to the United States 1881–1910 Jan Bohlin and Anna‐Maria Eurenius Department of Economic History School of Business, Economics and Law University of Gothenburg Paper presented to the 8th Conference of the European Historical Economics Society, Geneva, 3–6 September 2009 Abstract
The determinants of emigration from the Swedish countryside to the United States, 1881–1910, are
explored by means of a panel data set with yearly observations for 24 counties. The emigration rate
declined over the long term, which is explained by an improvement in the standard of living and
employment opportunities. Persistent regional differences in the emigration rate are explained by regional
differences in population density and emigration tradition.
1. Introduction
Emigration from Scandinavia began to accelerate around 1870. Between 1870 and 1910 just over a
million, corresponding to roughly one fifth of the average total population in this period, left Sweden. The
overwhelming majority went to the United States. In the 1880’s Swedish emigration rates were only
superseded by those of Norway and Ireland, and still in the 1890’s Swedish emigration rates were
comparatively high (O’Rourke and Williamson 1999, p. 122).
The majority of the population lived in the countryside. Accordingly, the bulk of emigrants also
originated from the countryside. At the height of the emigration in the 1880’s not much concern was
voiced over the massive emigration. On the contrary, some voices, notably the Swedish economist Knut
Wicksell, argued that emigration was a safety valve that diminished overpopulation and demographic
pressures in the countryside. Twenty years later, when the last emigration wave before World War I
blossomed, opinion had changed. Much concern was now raised over emigration. Landowners and other
agrarian interest groups worried about scarcity of manpower and blamed emigration for it (Kälvemark
1972, chapter 4). Growing concern over emigration led to the appointment in 1907 of a large public
investigation, Emigrationsutredningen, on the causes and consequences of the transatlantic emigration
(Kälvemark 1972, ch. 5-6). It resulted in a main report, written by Swedish demographer Gustav
Sundbärg comprising almost 900 pages (Sundbärg 1913), and 20 special investigations.
As had been pointed out already by Emigrationsutredningen, a conspicuous feature of transatlantic
emigration was that it fluctuated wildly over time. The most intensive period was between 1880 and 1893,
when a total of 550,000 Swedes chose to leave the country. From its height in the 1880’s and early 1890’s
the long-term trend in emigration was nevertheless pointing downwards. Emigration also varied
characteristically between regions. Most of the emigrants originated from the western and southern parts,
while the emigrants from the eastern and northern regions were considerably fewer.
Our ambition is to explain the long-run downward trend in emigration rates as well as its regional
variations. To do so we also need to control for the temporal fluctuations in emigration. We use a panel
dataset of 24 Swedish counties over the period 1881–1910. The dataset makes it possible to study the
dynamics of emigration, which is easier to do with multiple time series instead of only one aggregated
1 time series as in time series studies, as well as the regional variations in emigration rates. To the best of
our knowledge such a dataset is unique in studies of late nineteenth century transatlantic emigration.1
Before we embark on our own empirical investigation we first, in the next two sections, give some typical
characteristics of Swedish emigration and review earlier research on the subject.
2. An overview of Swedish emigration
2.1. Data
Our data on emigration derive from official statistics, which are based on information from local parishes,
which were put together by the parish priests and sent to the Central Bureau of Statistics. These emigrant
data, contained in the so-called condensed population reports (summariska folkmängdsredogörelserna)
served as the main source material for the official emigration statistics since 1861 (Tedebrand 1976, p.
85). The reports are known to contain some deficiencies. To some extent they are due to the fact that it
was sometimes difficult for the parish priests to separate emigration from other kinds of migration. There
were a significant amount of unregistered emigrants, which implies that the numbers reported by the local
priests in fact were too low. It could be due for example to emigrants who moved without securing an
address change certificate for the purpose of emigration or to factual errors in the residential registration.
Another cause of errors in the statistics could be the fact that only the persons who had filed an address
change certificate were actually registered as emigrants. People who indubitably had emigrated but
without the proper kind of certificate where not registered as emigrants. However, these deficiencies in
the recorded emigration refer primarily to the early years of Swedish mass emigration. The Emigration
Ordinance of 1884 implied a prohibition against emigrant agents to convey emigrants abroad without
presenting a proper address change certificate to the police authorities. This resulted in a decrease in the
unregistered emigration (Bidrag till Sveriges officiella statistik, series A, 1885, p. XVII). Historical
research has established that the condensed population reports, put together by parish priests, truthfully
recorded the demographic information contained in the church books. There seems to be a consensus,
however, that the official emigration statistics underestimated factual emigration, especially before the
mid 1880’s, although the problems with the official statistics were not as large as for example Gustav
Sundbärg believed. Its main deficiency seems to be that it does not account for the substantial short-term
trans-Atlantic work emigration that took place. In an international perspective Swedish emigration
statistics is nevertheless considered exceptionally good (Tedebrand 1976, pp. 84–94). The official
statistics is also the only available source that gives a regional break-down of the emigration streams.
1
Timothy Hatton and Jeffrey G. Williamson (1993) studied Irish emigration using a panel dataset of Irish counties
for the period 1881–1911, but they only had data for four census years, not for the entire period.
2 2.2. Characteristics of Swedish emigration
A first characteristic of Swedish emigration to the United States was its sharp fluctuations from year to
year. This is clearly brought forward by Figure 1, showing the emigration rate in the period 1851–1913.
Apart from a peak in 1869 emigration was low until the 1880’s, when emigration peaked in 1882 and
1887/88. Another peak in the emigration rate occurred in the beginning of the 1890. After 1893 the
emigration rate subsided and was low for the rest of the 1890’s until a new wave of emigration started
around the turn of the century. The latter peaked in 1903, after which there was another short burst with a
peak in 1910. Emigration fluctuated wildly, but as can be seen from Figure 1 there was also a downward
trend in the emigration rate after the 1880s.
Swedish emigration cycles was part of an international pattern with comparatively low emigration rates in
the 1870’s and 1890’s and high emigration rates in the 1880’s and the first decade of the twentieth
century. In the literature this has been connected to a pattern of inversely related long swings in the
Atlantic economy. When the business cycle turned up in the US it turned down in the UK and other westEuropean countries, and vice versa (Thomas 1954; 1972). The 1870’s and 1890’s were decades of
upswings in the business cycle in western Europe and downswings in the US, while in the 1880’s and
00’s the phases of the business cycles on the two continents were reversed.
The transatlantic emigration rate not only varied in correspondence with long swings in the Atlantic
economy, but also from year to year, mirroring short-run fluctuations in economic activity. Figure 2
shows yearly emigration rates along with a two year moving average of the difference in yearly GDP
growth rates between the US and Swedish economy for the years 18701913. As can be seen there is clear
correlation between changes in emigration rates and changes in the business cycles as measured by
differences in GDP growth rates.
From 1881 we have data that separates emigration from the countryside and the cities. As shown by
Figure 3 fluctuations in emigration were common for the countryside and the towns, but, particularly in
the 1880’s emigration rates were higher for the towns.
The cycles of emigration were common also for men and women, but, as shown by Figure 4, emigration
rates were generally lower for women. This was particularly the case when emigration rates were high, as
for example in the 1880’s. In other words, fluctuations in emigration rates were less pronounced for
women than for men. Women did not react as swiftly as men to the allure of upswings in the business
cycle in the US or on push effects resulting from downswings in the Swedish business cycle. This may be
3 because many of the jobs that women applied for, notably maids, were less sensitive to business cycle
fluctuations.
From the literature on late nineteenth century emigration it is well-known (Carlsson 1976, pp. 130-32)
that emigration was predominantly concentrated to the age group 15–34 years old. As can be seen form
Table 1, 71 percent of the emigrants from Sweden to the US in the period 1881–1910 belonged to this age
group at the time of emigration. Of the emigrants in this period 16 percent were children (age group 0–14
years old). They travelled in company with their parents, so the substantial number of children that
emigrated may also be seen as a result of the high emigration rate among men and women in their
twenties. However, most of the emigrants were unmarried; otherwise the number of child emigrants
would have been higher.
In Table 1 we also show that emigration rates varied strongly among the age groups. In the age group 20–
24 years old, on average almost 2 percent emigrated each year in the period 1880–1910. As can be seen
from Table 1 emigration rates were also high in the adjacent age groups. In the age groups above 35 years
of age the probability of emigrating quickly dwindled. Emigration rates among children (age group 0–14
years of age) were also low, which is another way to express the fact that most emigrants from the
emigration sensitive age groups were unmarried at the time of emigration.
The emigration varied not only over time but also among regions. Figure 5 shows how emigration rates in
the Swedish countryside differed between counties during the period 1881–1910. A clear concentration of
high emigration rates is seen in the southern and western regions, with the exception of the counties
Göteborg and Bohuslän in the west and Malmöhus in the south, where many people from the countryside
migrated to the cities Göteborg and Malmö.2 The highest emigration proportion is shown for the counties
Halland, Värmland, Kronoberg, Älvsborg, Jönköping, and Kalmar. These six accounted for just over 28
per cent of the population on the countryside, but for ca 44% of the country’s emigrants during the period
1881–1910. The yearly emigration rate in these counties amounted to between 7 and 10 persons per
thousand inhabitants. The counties in eastern and northern Sweden show a substantially lower proportion
of emigration, with a yearly emigration rate between 1 and 4 emigrants per thousand inhabitants.
The regional differences in emigration corresponded to other differences between the same regions, as
was pointed out already in the vast public investigation on emigration, published in 1913. The main
2
It may also have been the case that trans-Atlantic emigration is under-reported in that some emigrants may have
emigrated via Denmark or Germany, in the case of Blekinge and Malmöhus county, and Norway, in the case of
Värmland, Göteborg and Bohus county. This is indicated by the substantial difference between total emigration and
trans-Atlantic emigration for these counties, especially for Göteborg and Bohus county. For Sweden as a whole,
emigration to the US accounted for 85–90 percent of total emigration. For the counties mentioned above it
accounted for 70–80 percent, for Göteborg and Bohus county 65 percent.
4 report, written by Swedish demographer Gustaf Sundbärg, explained the regional differences in
emigration by regional differences in the previous demographic development. According to Sundbärg
there were three main demographic areas in Sweden based on characteristic differences in marital
fertility: the east, the west and the north. Sundbärg’s west region stretched from central Kopparberg
county in the northeast to Kalmar county in the southeast (Figure 6). This region exhibited high marital
fertility rates which in combination with low mortality rates led to rapid population growth. In his eastern
region, stretching from Jämtland county in the north to Östergötland county in the south marital fertility
rates were much lower. More rapid population growth in the west stimulated emigration which in its turn
moderated the regional differences in population pressure (Sundbärg 1910, p. 8). Nils Wohlin, one of
Sundbärg’s colleagues in the public investigation committee on emigration, pointed out that the regional
differences in demographic behavior corresponded to differences in economic conditions and in the
structure of landownership in the countryside. Land reclamation and parceling out of land into smaller
farm units was much more common in western Sweden where land to a large extent was cultivated by
peasants owning their land. In the core eastern region on the other hand, where large estates and
ownership by the nobility was much more common, parceling out of land into smaller farm units was
much less prevalent. Estates and other large farm units relied on hired labour. According to Wohlin there
was a causal connection between the much higher parceling out of land into small units in the west and
higher birth rates which in its turn spurred emigration (Sundbärg 1910, pp. 4,9; Wohlin 1909, pp. 16768). The causal link between regional differences in economic structure and the structure of
landownership have been developed by later historians, foremost among them Christer Winberg. The
agrarian revolution in the first half of the nineteenth century signified increased grain prices and increased
labour demand. In the core eastern counties, where large farms and large states were much more prevalent
than in the west, it resulted in increased demand for wage labour. In the typical western counties, on the
other hand, the result was further sub-division of landownership and land reclamation. In small farms
cultivated by the owner and other family members children were often seen as economic assets adding to
the labour force at the farm, while among wage labourers and other landless people the incentives for
having many children were less persistent. The higher birth rates in Sundbärg’s eastern Sweden may thus,
according to Winberg, be explained by differences in ownership structure which led to different responses
to the demand forces unleashed by the agricultural revolution (Winberg 1975, pp. 49-51; Winberg 1988,
p. 49 ff).
In northern Sweden, the third of Sundbärg’s main demographic region encompassing Västernorrland
county, Västerbotten county and Norrbotten county, economic conditions were quite different compared
to the other regions, even though there were similarities with the west in demographic behaviour. High
5 fertility rates and low mortality led to rapid population growth, but in the northern region it was also
stimulated by an inflow of migrants from other parts of Sweden. northern Sweden, Norrland, with its vast
natural resources was the site of the typical resource based Swedish export industries: the sawmill
industry, the pulp and paper industry and the iron ore mines. Many small farm units were set up in the
countryside by settlers who often combined farming with seasonal wage labour in the forestry sector and
sawmills. However, agricultural yields were generally lower in the north region, and many farmers were
much dependent on the vicissitudes of the forestry sector and the sawmill industry. This may explain why
the time profile of emigration from the northern counties is quite dissimilar to the west and east regions.
In the east and west region there is a downward trend in transatlantic emigration, which is not seen in the
north (Figure 7). On the contrary, there is even a tendency for emigration to go up in the northern counties
towards the end of our period, in connection with a slackening of growth and profitability in the forestry
and sawmill sector (Sundbärg 1910, pp. 167-68).
3.
Earlier studies on the causes of late nineteenth century Swedish-US emigration
Earlier research on the causes of late nineteenth century emigration have typically used two types of data:
time series data in order to explore temporal variations in emigration and cross-sectional data on regions,
where the dependent variables often is the average rate of emigration for a given period, to explore the
regional variations in emigration rates.
3.1. Time series studies
The international literature on emigration is dominated by studies on time series data. Since Swedish data
are exceptionally good, emigration from Sweden has featured prominently in this literature. The first
generation of studies was dominated by the question whether emigration was caused by “push” or “pull”
factor. In a seminal study Jerome (1926) argued that upswings in the US business cycles, resulting in
increased labour demand, were the most decisive causal factor, which also explains the fluctuations in
emigration, whereas “push” forces in the sending countries where of lesser importance. Simon Kuznets
agreed that pull factors were decisive, otherwise it was difficult to explain the international character of
the emigration waves, since it was highly unlikely that “push” factors would operate at the same time in
different countries (Gould 1979, pp. 630-31). However, Brinley Thomas (1954; 1972) argued that the US
and British economy were causally connected in the framework of an Atlantic economy. This should also
be the case for other European countries, not the least Sweden, since their business cycles were tied to the
British by means of foreign trade, in which case it explains why push forces operated simultaneously in
many countries. For the case of Sweden Dorothy Swain Thomas argued for the importance of push
6 factors: “the most consistent increase in emigration occurred when pull and push coincided… prosperity
in America was highly important as a stimulus to emigration from Sweden, but … cyclical upswings in
Sweden were a far more powerful counter-stimulant than is generally recognized” (Thomas 1941, p. 169).
The first generation of time series studies on emigration used simple techniques, such as bivariate
correlations and trend calculations, to explore the causes behind emigration. Later economists and
economic historians have used multiple regression analysis. They have typically used three types of
explanatory variables: data on economic activity indicating employment opportunities in the sending and
receiving countries, data on wages or income levels, and demographic data in the emigrant countries
indicating the presence of Malthusian pressures. Lagged emigration and in some cases also stocks of
previous emigrants have also been employed as explanatory variables in time series regressions.
In a time series model of Swedish emigration Wilkinson (1967, pp. 32-35) regressed the log of emigration
from Sweden to the US against itself lagged one year and the log of manufacturing output in the two
countries indicating employment opportunities. He concluded from the model that push and pull factors
were equally important. So did also Quigley (1972) in a study where he regressed the log of Swedish-US
emigration against itself lagged one year and against the log of wage rates in the two countries. He also
included births lagged 26 years in the regression to control for Malthusian pressures. Quigley estimated
separate equations for emigration originating in the industrial and agricultural sector and also included a
variable on harvests in the regressions.
Similar time series models have been estimated for other countries. In a survey of the literature up until
the 1980’s Gould (1979, pp. 636-48) summarized some of the results from time series models of
emigration. By and large variables serving as proxies for employment opportunities give clear and
consistent results. Income variables give less clear results, especially when combined in the same
regression as variables indicating employment opportunities. When wage/income variables are included
in regressions that do not include variables indicating employment opportunities they tend to pick up the
influences from the latter. However, while there was a trend in the Swedish-US wage ratio in that
Swedish wages caught up on US unskilled wages (Williamson 1995; Prado 2010), there was no trend in
employment opportunities. In time series models short-run fluctuations in activity levels dominate
estimation results rendering wage variables insignificant.3
3
Hatton (1995a) combines the variables relative wage rate (the US wage rate divided by the Swedish) and the ratio
of employment opportunities in the US and Sweden (defined as the percentage deviation of GDP per capita from its
trend) into one variable. He does so by multiplying the relative wage rate by the ratio of employment opportunities
raised to 1.5. The log of the combined variable enters the regression as one of the explanatory variables. In other
words, he restrains the coefficient for the log of the ratio of GDP per capita deviations to be 1.5 times the size of the
7 A variable that always is highly significant in time series regressions and with a large impact is lagged
emigration. In other words, emigration the previous year(s) has a large impact on current emigration. It
has been interpreted as a lagged response, for example emigration in the first few months in a year
reflected conditions in the autumn the previous year, but also as mirroring a “friends and relatives” effect.
Several scholars have also tried to incorporate the latter by including the emigrant stock as an explanatory
variable (Hatton 1995a; 1995b; Hatton and Williamson 1993). In many cross-sectional studies the stock
of previous emigrants have turned out to be an important explanatory variable, but it is more cumbersome
to include in time series regressions since the stock of previous emigrants is more or less equal to
cumulative previous net emigration. It is not obvious why such a cumulative sum, which monotonously
increases, should be able to contribute to explaining in a time series context the year to year variations in
emigration or even its trend. The statistical results of incorporating it in regressions for various countries
have also been very mixed (Hatton 1995a, p. 561; Hatton 1995b, p. 412; Hatton and Williamson 1993, p.
584).
Demographic variables have been incorporated in many forms in time series studies on emigration. The
most important types of variables seem to be lagged births or the percentage share of emigration sensitive
age groups, e.g. 20–30 years of age, in the population at risk of emigrating. Although it is clear from
micro data that age is an important variable for explaining emigration it has been difficult to show any
sizable impact from demographic variables in a time series context. The reason seems to be that although
there is a variation over time in the share of emigration sensitive age groups in the total population, it
seems to be of a more long-swing character, and is therefore not pertinent to the explanation of the shortrun year to year variations in emigration rates (Gould 1979, p. 642).
3.2. Cross-sectional studies on regional variations in emigration
There is a voluminous historical literature on Swedish emigration in the late nineteenth century. As we
have already mentioned, a comprehensive study was carried out in Sweden at the beginning of the 1900s
through the state survey Emigrationsutredningen (1907–1913) under the leadership of Gustaf Sundbärg.
The survey’s ca 900-page main report was written by Sundbärg (1913) himself and contained, among
other things, a statistical overview of each county, a review of the emigration legislation and a part that
dealt with the causes of emigration and the measures that could be taken for its restriction. The survey
also contained twenty supplements by various authors and several statistical studies and accounts of
coefficient for log wage-ratio. This is motivated by a utility function derived in Hatton (1995b). We have been able
to by and large reproduce Hatton’s estimation results (not exactly because there obviously are some differences in
the data) but when we let the wage rate enter the regression separately from the GDP/capita deviation ratio, the wage
rated completely looses all statistical significance.
8 widely differing subjects, such as economic statistics, demographic information, the applicable legislation
and ordinances concerning, for example, emigration agents and emigration ships, reports from emigrating
Swedes and so on. Sundbärg claimed that the principal reason for the emigration was the inability of the
Swedish countryside to maintain an increasingly larger population. He did not approve of the ongoing
rationalisation in the agricultural sector, but recommended a more extensive development of agriculture.
He also opined that industrial development had a significant role to play in reducing emigration, but that it
would not suffice. Hence, it was absolutely necessary to develop the agricultural sector (Sundbärg 1913,
pp. 662-64). The report was published in 1913 but never became the basis for Swedish emigration policy
that it was intended to be. Soon after it was published the First World War brought a stop to Swedish
mass emigration.
Another large research project dealing with late nineteenth century Swedish emigration was carried out at
the Department of History, Uppsala University, between 1963 and 1976 and was summarised in the book
”From Sweden to America” (Runblom and Norman 1976). The Uppsala project mainly resulted in
numerous descriptive regional studies4 that examined various aspects of the emigration process. From
these local studies scholars have concluded that countryside parishes with a high degree of industrial
production tended to have higher emigration rates than purely agricultural parishes, although there were
exceptions to this pattern. Moreover, emigration rates tended to be lower in rural parishes with a
geographical proximity to urban industrial centers, presumably because migration to the cities partly
substituted for overseas emigration for inhabitants of these parishes. Another conclusion from local
studies was that emigration tradition, that is, a prior history of high emigration, induced further high
emigration (Carlsson 1976, pp. 133-40; Norman 1976, pp. 153-55).
Only in a few instances did researchers in the Uppsala project use statistical methods, more advanced than
simple descriptive statistics. An exception is Hans Norman’s study of a cross-section of 214 parishes
from Örebro county, Västmanland county and Värmland county in central Sweden (Norman 1974;
Norman 1976, pp. 156-64). Norman’s data for these parishes consisted of average emigration rates for the
period 1881–1890 which he matched against data on internal emigration rates, emigration tradition
(measured as average previous emigration rates), geographical distance to cities, and various socioeconomic variables emanating mainly from around the turn of the century 1900. He did not use regression
analysis but instead a method called AID (Automatic Interaction Detector) analysis which purportedly
assesses which variable contributes most to explain the cleavage between high and low emigration
parishes. 5 The problem with this type of method seems to be that it is impossible to assess the
4
5
See for example Nilsson (1970), Norman (1974), Rondahl (1972), Tedebrand (1972).
See for example Sonquist and Morgan (1970), Åkerman (1979; 1971)
9 quantitative impact of the different variables. Norman nevertheless confirmed results from local studies of
a more descriptive character, namely that industrial parishes and parishes with an emigration tradition
tended to have higher, and parishes with a geographical proximity to urban centers tended to have lower
emigration rates. Another result of his study was that parishes with a high percentage of arable land of the
total land area tended to have lower emigration rates.
Since the studies of the Uppsala project were all of a regional or local character it may be argued that their
conclusions cannot be generalized to other regions. The American scholar Briant Lindsay Lowell (1987)
studied the causal factors behind the emigration by assembling a cross-sectional dataset for all 301 härads
(an administrative unit intermediate between parishes and counties) of Sweden for the period 1881–1900,
which he explored by means of regression analysis. Lowell’s dataset consisted mainly of demographic
and economic variables, which he obtained from the aforementioned Emigrationsutredningen, but also
some other sources.
Lowell confirmed some of the results of the Uppsala project, for example that geographical proximity to
cities led to lower emigration rates and that emigration tradition was an important factor behind
emigration. Based on the contribution of the various variables to the overall coefficient of determination,
partial correlations and standardized regression coefficients he came to the conclusion that emigration
tradition was the most important explanatory variable. It is, however, difficult to evaluate the effects of
the different variables on the emigration rate merely by looking at correlations and regression
coefficients, without considering descriptive statistics of the variables in the dataset, their means and
standard deviations. In other words, Lowell did not provide any standard by which the reader can size up
the quantitative importance of the various regression coefficients. Another drawback of the Lowell study
is that although the dependent variable is the mean emigration per thousand inhabitants for the years
1880–1900, most of the explanatory variables come from one particular year around 1900. Hence, all
variables do not pertain to the same date and no consideration is given to the fact that explanatory
variables varied over time in a dissimilar way from region to region. Like the aforementioned study by
Norman in the Uppsala project, Lowell’s study endeavored to explain regional variations in late
nineteenth century trans-Atlantic emigration by exploring a cross-sectional dataset. However, as shown in
the discussion of time series models of emigration, a conspicuous feature was its characteristic variation
over time. As we argue below different types of variables explain the time series variation and the
regional variation in emigration. Ideally, we should therefore have a dataset that combines the crosssectional and time series dimension.
10 4.
Description of the dataset
To explore the causes behind emigration we have constructed a panel dataset, containing yearly data for
24 of Sweden’s 25 counties (län) over the period 1881 to 1910; Stockholm city is excluded since we
confine ourselves to emigration from the countryside. The majority of the population still lived in the
countryside and hence the majority of emigrants came from rural areas. Another obvious reason why we
confine ourselves to a study of emigration from the countryside is that is possible to collect information
on variables of interest from these areas to a much larger extent than is possible for urban areas. From
1881 it is possible for the first time to obtain county data emigration divided on the countryside and the
towns. For this reason our study commences in 1881. We end our study in 1910. This thirty years period
covers the main phases of Swedish-US emigration.
4.1. Variables used in the regressions
Our dependent variable in the regressions reported below is the number of emigrants to the US per
thousand inhabitants in the countryside. Several explanatory variables have been constructed by using our
hypotheses of what determined emigration as a starting point. They broadly can be grouped under three
headings: demographic variables indicating the size of emigration sensitive cohorts in the population;
variables indicating the availability of land and other means to earn a livelihood in the countryside;
variables indicating the evolution of the standard of living.
It is well-known that most of the emigrants were unmarried men and women in their early twenties or
slightly below. We do not have data on the age distribution of the various counties, except for the census
years. However we have yearly data on births from the 1860’s. Births lagged 20 years may serve to
indicate the size of the emigration sensitive cohort in the population. Accordingly one of our variables is
the number of births lagged twenty year per thousands of current population. We expect emigration to
vary positively with this variable.
The marriage rate varied over time and between the counties. In time series regressions this variable has
been shown to have some influence (Hatton 1995a). Thus we include the number of marriages per
thousand inhabitants as one of our explanatory variables. We expect that an increase in the marriage rate
would lead to less emigration since married people were less inclined to emigrate. Moreover, a higher
marriage rate may also indicate better or more stable employment opportunities and access to land.
High population pressure affected the possibility of earning a living in agriculture, which should have
affected the propensity to emigrate. To test this proposition we have constructed a variable that we call
11 population density, defined as the quotient population/(arable+0.33 x meadowland).6 All else equal we
expect emigration to be higher the higher population density is.
If a large proportion of the farming units were small, it could indicate that the possibility of obtaining land
was greater, which should have led to a lower propensity to emigrate. In their panel data study of Irish
emigration Hatton and Williamson (Hatton and Williamson 1993) included a variable showing the
proportion of small farms. Swedish agricultural statistics give information on how the farming of
cultivated land was distributed between owners and leaseholders and how many of the farming units were
in the size classes -2 hectares, =>2 hectares–20 hectares, >20 hectares–100 hectares, >100 hectares. It is
accordingly fully possible to include size variables in the regressions. However, counties with high
population pressure generally also had a much higher share of small farm units. A high share of small
farm units may also have had a contradictory effect on the emigration propensity since it may also
indicate fewer opportunities for landless people to gain employment at larger farms. Moreover, the
variation within counties of the size distribution of farm units was small, which makes it difficult to
obtain reliable estimates. Experimentation with various panel regressions did not lead to any
economically and statistically significant effects from size variables. We have therefore excluded such
type of variables from the regressions presented below.
Another variable, whose evolution might indicate population pressure, is the percentage share of crofters
and cottagers of the rural population. To be a crofter (torpare) meant to dispose a tiny peace of land for
personal use and a place to live in return for performing labour services at the main farm under which the
crofter was subsumed. There was actually quite a big differentiation in social and economic conditions
among the crofters. The well-situated among them were not much below the position of small copyholders, while the poorest among them were not much better situated than cottagers. The cottagers
(backstugusittare) lived in small houses without any adjacent piece of land. They were the poorest social
strata in the countryside and served as casual labour during harvest seasons but were often dependent on
poor relief. The number of crofters and cottagers expanded rapidly and increased its share of the
countryside population between 1750 and 1850.7 In the last decades of the nineteenth century, when
population pressure declined, the proportion of crofters and cottagers dwindled. A large fraction of
crofters and cottagers may indicate that many of the rural inhabitants were landless or could not get
6
Meadow land has been weighted by 0.33 based on its value compared to arable land. See for example Höijer
(1921, p. 219)
7
It is possible to obtain separate numbers for crofters and cottagers in the census years (Wohlin 1908; 1909), but not
for other years when we have to rely on the official agricultural statistics, where the number of the two groups are
combined under the heading “jordtorp och andra jordlägenheter”.
12 employment under better conditions than that of crofters and cottagers, which should have led to
increased emigration.
The following two variables concern the impact of increased output of animal products and grain. We
assume that increased output affected labour demand in the countryside and, all else equal, it also
improved the rural population’s economic well-being and should have led to lower emigration. A
characteristic feature of Swedish agricultural development in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century was the increasing share of animal output. Expanding animal production improved the
profitability of farm owners and should have led to increased and also more stable job opportunities, since
labour demand in this line of production was less seasonally dependent than grain production. We do not
have data on the value of animal output per county, but we do have data on the number of animals. Our
variable for animal output is based on a measure in which the whole animal stock is reduced to cattle
units (nötkreatursenheter), a term used in Swedish agricultural statistics.8 To control for the effect of
increased animal output on the emigration rate we use the variable number of cattle units per hectare
arable and meadow land. We expect the emigration rate to decline with increased animal output.
Grain output did not at all increase to the same extent as animal output. Increasing grain output per unit of
arable land, had contradictory effects on emigration rates. On the one hand it increased living standards,
which should have lowered emigration rates. On the other hand, increased labour productivity also led to
decreased labour demand if it was not sufficiently compensated by an increase in the cultivated acreage.
For these reasons we would expect the effects of grain output on the migration rate to be less clear-cut
than animal output. In order to control for the effects of increased grain production, we have estimated the
value of the production in fixed prices for the different counties and years. It is well known that Swedish
agricultural statistics, at least before the 1890s, underestimated the size of arable acreage. The harvest per
acreage unit, i.e. the reported production of crop products divided by the arable acreage size, should be a
more reliable measure than total output. In the regression we use the variable crop product output per
hectare arable land acreage. Both variables indicating the evolution of agricultural production enter the
regressions in logarithmic form, since we assume that it is the rate of increase in agricultural production
which is important in this context.
Another factor affecting employment opportunities in the countryside was the availability of job
opportunities outside the agricultural sector. By the term countryside population (landsbygdbefolkning) in
Swedish population statistics is meant people living outside the towns. Most of them, but not all, earned
their living in the agricultural sector. It would be useful to have data on how large a share of the gainfully
8
A cattle unit is equal to one cow, 2/3 horse, 10 sheep, 12 goats and four pigs.
13 employed were engaged in agriculture since it might be argued that a large share of employment outside
agriculture indicate more job opportunities, which inhibited emigration. For the census years we have data
on the occupational distribution of the population. For other years the share of the value of agricultural
taxable properties of the value of all taxable properties may serve as a proxy for the proportions of
agricultural and non-agricultural job opportunities in the countryside. We have experimented with this
variable in various regressions but did not obtain statistically or economically significant estimates. 9 We
have therefore dropped it from the regressions reported below. On further thoughts it is not clear-cut how
an increase in the non-agricultural share of the labour force should affect emigration. On the one hand it
increased employment opportunities outside of the agricultural sector, but on the other hand nonagricultural output shared the same cyclical variations as the agricultural sector and as we have shown in
section 2 above emigration rates tended to be higher in towns than in the countryside.
Two variables refer to the evolution of incomes and living standards in the countryside. They are
formulated on the assumption that an important incentive for emigration was the increase in economic
well-being that an emigrant could hope to achieve by moving to the US. The most important variable in
this respect was the real wage differential between the USA and Sweden. The assumption is that the
higher the real wage in the USA compared to Sweden, the higher the emigration rate, and vice versa. In
defining the variable, Swedish agricultural labour wages for each county are first deflated with a Swedish
cost of living index (Myrdal 1933, p. 128). The Swedish real wages thus obtained are then divided by a
real wage index for unskilled labour in the USA (Williamson 1995). This variable is also expressed in
logarithmic form since we assume that the prospective emigrant reacted on the percentage wage increase
he or she could hope to obtain by moving across the Atlantic.
The next variable with a connection to the living standard is the proportion of the population that were
entitled to poor relief. A large proportion of the population on poor relief indicates difficult living
conditions that should have spurred emigration. The variable is defined as the percentage share of poor
relief recipients of the total countryside population.
In the regressions reported below we also use the lagged dependent variable as one of our explanatory
variables. Time series regressions have unequivocally shown that this is an important variable in
modeling the dynamics of migration. Sometimes this variable has also been interpreted as showing the
impact of the “friends and relatives effect”. There are, however, better ways to model the impact of the
emigration tradition. In time series studies the emigrant stock has been used for this purpose, with mixed
9
We have also tried the variable ”employment share in agriculture” in regressions for the census years, without
achieving any significant results.
14 results, as we argued in section 3.1 above. The fact that we have a panel dataset enables us to form a
variable that better serves our purpose of indicating the effect of the emigration tradition. In constructing
the variable we have first for each county and year calculated the cumulative sum of previous emigrants
to the US. For each county we have than calculated its share of total cumulated countryside emigration in
a year and divided it by the county’s share of the total countryside population in the given year.
Our constructed variable for emigration tradition is a ratio between two quotients and its cross-sectional
variations is much larger than its variations over time within the various cross-sectional units (see Table 2
below). We believe that it had its most important impact on regional differences in emigration, and, since
the variable lacks a natural scale, we have in fact scaled it so that for each year its arithmetic mean equals
unity. We expect that a high value for emigration tradition will have a positive impact on emigration
rates.
4.2. Descriptive statistics for the variables
In Table 2 descriptive statistics of the variables that we use in our study are displayed. Along with the
means and overall standard deviations of the variables, the standard deviations within the cross-sectional
unit and the standard deviations between the cross-sectional units, i.e. the standard deviations of the crosssectional means, are also given. As shown by the table, for some of the variables the most notable
variation in the dataset is over time within the cross-sectional units. This is most particularly the case for
the Swedish/US real wage ratio. For other variables, on the other hand, most particularly population
density and emigration tradition, variation across the cross sectional units, was the most important source
of variation in the dataset.
In table 3 we show how the mean of the various variables for the census years 188010, 1890, 1900 and
1910. As we discussed above, the emigration rate varied not only over time, but also in a characteristic
way between the various counties. Earlier research on Swedish emigration, demographic behavior, and
Swedish nineteenth century historiography more generally, has made much of the distinction that
Swedish demographer Sundbärg made between “eastern” and “western” Sweden. Our ambition is to
explain not only the evolution over time of the emigration rate, but also differences in emigration between
the various parts of the country. In table 3 we therefore also show how the variables we use in our
regressions evolved for Sundbärg’s demographic regions.11
10
Since we do not have data for most of the variables before 1881, we use 1881 and not the census year 1880 as our
first year of comparison.
11
Sundbärg’s regions were constructed from data at a lower administrative level than the counties. Some counties
contained parishes from both the “east” and the “west” or the “east” and the “north”. To operationalize Sundbärg’s
15 Between 1881 and 1910 the overall emigration rate (un-weighted county average) declined by about 5
emigrants per thousand both in the north and in the west, but it was always higher, on average by slightly
more than 3 per thousands, in Sundbärg’s western counties than in the eastern counties. Differences in
demographic behavior were the basis for Sundbärg’s division of Sweden into different regions. Those
differences are also clearly brought forward in table 4. Birth rate lagged twenty years per thousands of
current population declined over time, but it was always higher in the western than in the eastern
counties, even though the regional differences diminished between 1881 and 1910. The same regional
differences can be seen in the marriage rate. This variable also declined over time. It was always higher
in the east than in the west, but in this case also the regional differences were less pronounced in 1910
than in 1881.
Average population density for all counties did not show much of a trend between 1881 and 1910.
However there were always large regional differences in this variable. The population density was
consistently higher in the western counties than in the eastern counties, although the difference tended to
diminish over time. The percentage share of crofters and cottagers in the countryside population showed
a downward trend, reflecting a decline in the landless population. There were regional differences also in
this variable. In typical eastern counties the share of crofters was larger. This was no doubt connected to
the generally larger farm units in this area and the more wide-spread use of hired labour, which made it
possible for landless people to earn a living in wage labour on larger farms and estates.
The number of cattle units per hectare arable and meadow increased by about 20 percent in the period
1881–1910. The regional differences in this increase were not pronounced, although the growth rate was
somewhat higher in the western counties, reflecting the higher population density in these counties and
also the prevalence of small farm units who tended to specialize more in animal husbandry than larger
farms. Crop output per hectare arable tended to increase by about 35 percent between 1881 and 1910 in
all 24 counties and by more than 45 percent in the eastern counties. Superficially it would appear from
these figures that the increase in crop output was of more importance than the increase in animal output.
This would be a false conclusion, however. The lion share of the increase in crop output was the increase
in oats production, which was predominantly used to feed the animals. A growing stock of animals
regions at the county level we have defined the following counties as belonging to the “east”: Stockholm, Uppsala,
Södermanland, Östergötland, Gotland, Västmanland, Gävleborg. The following counties are defined as belonging to
the “west”: Jönköping, Kronoberg, Kalmar, Blekinge, Kristianstad, Malmöhus, Halland, Göteborg and Bohus,
Älfsborg, Skaraborg, Värmland. The following counties are defined as belonging to the “north”: Västernorrland,
Västerbotten, Norrbotten. The remaining counties, i.e. Örebro, Kopparberg and Jämtland are referred as belonging
to a “mixed” category, since they were difficult to categorize as belonging to any of the other regions. Actually
Sundbärg categorized Jämtland as belonging to the “east”, based on demographic considerations. Due to its
geographic position and economic characteristics that distinguish it from the typical “eastern” counties we prefer
instead to refer it to the “mixed” group.
16 required a larger output of fodder grain, but the animals were also given more and better fodder, which
led to a much larger increase in animal output than is shown by the number of cattle units. Unfortunately
this increase in animal output is not shown by our data since we do not have data at the county level of
animal output.
The Swedish/US real wage differential increased by almost 30 percent between 1881 and 1910. There
were also regional differences in the wage rate. Wages were generally higher in the eastern counties than
in the western counties. This difference was not large but persistent. It even increased slightly. In other
words agricultural wages increased somewhat more in the eastern than in the western counties.
The share of poor relief recipients of the countryside population declined in our thirty years period,
reflecting the betterment in economic conditions. The decline was particularly prevalent in the western
counties. In 1881 the share of poor relief recipients was almost one percentage unit higher in western than
in eastern counties. By 1910 this regional difference had virtually disappeared.
The way we have scaled the variable emigrant tradition its overall mean is set to unity for all time periods.
As can be seen from Table 2 the most important variation is the between variation across the counties. As
seen in Table 3 there was a persistent difference between the west and the east regions, which increased
slightly over time, reflecting the higher emigration rates in the western counties.
5.
The determinants of emigration
5.1. Econometric methodology
Our dataset is a panel, which is important since different variables determine change over time and crosssectional variation in the emigration rate. A panel dataset makes it possible to control for cross section
specific effects, observed or unobserved, and at the same to study change over time.
We study the following type of model:
Yit = α i + λt + ∑ β j X j ,it + eit
(1)
j
where the subscript i stand for cross sections and t for time periods. The dependent variable Y , in our
case emigration per thousand inhabitants in the countryside, is conditioned on three sets of variables. We
are primarily interested in X j , a set of variables which vary over time and between cross sections. β j is a
vector of regression coefficients for X j that are assumed to be constant over time periods and cross
17 sections. Cross-section specific constants, α i , reflect the effects of observable and unobservable variables
that take a specific value for each cross section but are constant over time. To control for effects that
influence each cross-section alike in a given time period, such as the state of the business cycle in the US
and in Sweden and the industrialization level in Sweden, we also include a set of time fixed effects, λt .
The eit s are observation specific idiosyncratic errors.
If the cross section specific constants are correlated with variables X j ,an ordinary least squares estimate
with a common intercept for all cross sections yields biased estimates of the regression coefficients of
interest, β j , since they would pick up the influence of cross specific but time constant variables that are
not controlled for. In our case, common reasoning as well as statistical tests tells us that this is indeed the
case. We have therefore used the fixed effect estimator. A drawback of the fixed effect estimator is that it
is impossible to obtain estimates for variables that vary between cross-sections but are constant over time
within each cross-section. From this it also follows that it may be difficult to obtain reliable estimates for
variables where the variations within the cross-sectional units are small.
In most econometric theory for panel data it is typically assumed that the dataset consists of many crosssections observed over only a few time periods. However, in our case we have about as many crosssections as time periods, 24 and 30. This raises a host of other problems, but also possibilities, which have
lately come to be studied by econometricians (Pesaran et al. 1999). On the positive side, panels consisting
of multiple time series of reasonable length make it possible to model dynamics. In other words, we may
include lags of the independent variables and also lags of the dependent variable among the regressors. It
has been shown that in such models the fixed effects-estimator yields biased (too low) estimates for the
lagged dependent variable, since it is inevitably correlated with the error term. Instrumental variable
estimators have been proposed instead (Baltagi 2001, ch. 8). But these are also more appropriate for
datasets consisting of many cross-sections. Fortunately, in our case the bias of the fixed effects estimator
deriving from the inclusion of lagged dependent variables among the regressors will be small.12
Another concern is that the variables included in the dataset are non-stationary, as suggested by a battery
of panel unit root tests, not reported here. It is well known that a regression with time series data that are
not stationary may lead to spurious results unless the variables are cointegrated. With panel data that
include many time periods, about as many as the number of cross sections, as in the present case, the
situation is less clear (Baltagi 2001, ch. 12). According to Phillips and Moon (1999; 2000), if we have
12
With infinitely many time periods the bias disappears. When we have as many time periods as in our case it will
also be quite small (Nickel 1981).
18 independent cross sections then asymptotically the regression coefficients obtained with panel data using
the fixed effect estimator are correct even with non-stationary dependent and independent variables that
are not cointegrated. The idea is that “independent cross section data in the panel adds information and
this leads to a stronger overall signal than the pure time series case” (Phillips and Moon 2000, p. 271).
The problem with this result is that in practice time series are not infinitely long and cross sections are not
independent. Entorf (1997) concludes that in panels with about the same size in the cross section and time
series dimensions as the one used in the present study there is a spurious regression problem in fixed
effect regressions when the individual time series are non-stationary. Wooldridge also warns that when
there are many time periods (for example 30) and the number of cross sections is not very large (for
example 20) we must exercise caution in using fixed regression estimates with non-stationary data, since
the spurious regression problem may arise (Wooldridge 2003, pp. 467-68). It is therefore of some
importance of testing for cointegration between the variables used in the regression. Several panel
cointegration tests have been proposed in the literature. Using Westerlund’s error correction based test
(Westerlund 2007) we can reject the null hypothesis of no cointegration between the dependent variable
and each of the independent variables.13 We therefore proceed with estimating our model.
To model the determinants of emigration we use an autoregressive distributed lag model, which allows us
to model dynamic relationships. After experimentation with the dataset we have decided on two
autoregressive terms, which removes autocorrelations in the residuals. We have included one lag on the
other independent variables, i.e. they are assumed to influence the emigration rate in the same14 and in the
next period. In other words:
Yit = ρ1Yit −1 + ρ 2Yit −2 + ∑ β j ,0 X j ,it + ∑ β j ,1 X j ,it −1 + λt + α i + eit
j
(2)
j
In estimating the model it is useful to rewrite in the following form:
Yit = ρ1Yit −1 + ρ 2Yit − 2 + ∑ β j ,0 ΔX j ,it + ∑ ( β j ,0 + β j ,1 ) X j ,it −1 + λt + α i + eit
j
(3)
j
For interpretation it is convenient to rewrite (3) in error correction form:
13
We have used the xtwest procedure in Stata (Persyn and Westerlund 2008) by running bivariate tests with the
dependent variable and each of the independent variables.
14
The variable crop product per hectare is lagged one period since the harvest took place in the autumn. It is
therefore reasonable that the harvest in a year primarily affected behavior in the nest year.
19 β + β j ,1
⎛
⎞
X j ,it −1 ⎟ − ρ 2 ΔYit −1 + ∑ β j ,0 ΔX j ,it + λt + α i + eit
ΔYit = ( ρ1 + ρ 2 − 1) ⎜ Yit −1 − ∑ j ,0
j 1 − ρ1 − ρ 2
j
⎝
⎠
We may then interpret
(4)
β j ,0 + β j ,1
as the long-run multiplier of variable X j , while β j ,0 is the short-run
1 − ρ1 − ρ 2
multiplier.
5.2. Estimation results
In Table 4 our estimated regression model is presented. We present estimates for all emigrants as well as
estimates of regressions for men and women separately. In the following discussion we concentrate on the
interpretation of the long-run multipliers.
Increased population density stimulated emigration both in the short-run and long-run. The short-run
impact multiplier of population density is not so large as the long-run multiplier and is also not
statistically significant at conventional levels. To interpret the long-run coefficient of 8.3 we have to look
back at the descriptive statistics in Table 2, which shows that the average population density was 1.11.
Accordingly, the estimated coefficient means that if population density had doubled emigration would
have increased by 9.21 per thousand inhabitants, which is a powerful effect. However, since average
population changed very little over time it cannot account much for changes in the average long-term
evolution of the emigration rate. There were important differences in population density between
counties, though, so this variable is important for explaining regional differences in emigration rates. In
counties with lower population density it was easier to get access to land or other means of earning a
living, which inhibited emigration.
The estimated long-run coefficient of 8.3 for population density pertains to the non-northern counties.
Sundbärg´s non-northern counties were much more sparsely populated with an agricultural sector that
was much more extensive with less importance for arable production. We have measured population
density by the ratio population over arable and meadow land. Due to the relatively small share of arable
acreage of the total land area in the northern counties our measure for population density is less suitable
for them. It seems reasonable to expect that an increase in population density did not have the same effect
there as in other counties. We have therefore interacted a dummy variable north, standing for Sundbärg’s
northern counties, with population density. An estimated coefficient of –4.9 for this variable signifies that
the effect on emigration rates of an increase in population density in the northern counties was only half
as powerful as in the other counties.
20 We may interpret a decline in the percentage share of of crofters and cottagers as indicating a decline in
the share of landless people. Between 1881 and 1910 the percentage share of crofters declined by one
percentage unit, from 4.47 to 3.56 (Table 3). According to our long-run point estimate of 0.3 this should
have contributed to a decline in the emigration rate by roughly 0.3 per thousands.
There is a statistically discernable influence in the short run of an increased number of people in
emigration sensitive ages, as indicated by our variable births lagged twenty years per thousands of
current population. An increase in this variable by one unit in a year would have increased emigration by
1.2 per ten thousand inhabitants, which is a fairly small effect. The long-run multiplier of 0.04 is even
smaller and it is also not statistically significant at conventional levels. If we nevertheless accept ourt
point estimate, its influence on the long-term evolution of the migration rate is meagre. Between 1881 and
1910 this variable declined from 28.3 to 26 meaning that it contributed to a decline in the emigration rate
by 0.1. Its importance for regional differences is only slightly larger. Another demographic variable, the
marriage rate, has more impact on the emigration rate, both in the short and the long run. This variable
can possibly also be taken to reflect economic conditions since the marriage rate tended to vary with the
business cycle, but it also show a trend of long-term decline and it varied characteristically between
counties. Between 1881 and 1910 an un-weighted average of county marriage rates declined from 6.1 to
5.6. Since our estimated long-run coefficient is -0.65, this decline in the marriage rate should have
increased emigration by roughly 0.3 per thousand when other causal influences are accounted for. As we
will discuss below, it had some impact on regional differences in the emigration rate.
Going over to the economic variables, an increase in crop products per hectare arable has a statistically
discernable short-run effect on the emigration rate. The effect is however practically unimportant; an
increase in crop output per arable by ten percent in a given year would have reduced emigration by
slightly less than one per ten thousand inhabitants. Consequently it was practically unimportant as crop
products per arable seldom increased by more than one percent per year. The long-run impact is even
smaller, of unexpected sign, and is also not statistically significant. Of considerable more importance for
the emigration rate is the evolution of the number of cattle units per hectare arable and meadows.15
According to our estimated long-run multiplier a ten percent increase in the number of cattle unit per
hectare would have reduced emigration by 0.7 per thousands. The number of cattle units per hectare
increased by more than twenty percent between 1881 and 1910 (Table 3), so this variable is of
considerable importance for explaining the declining trend in emigration form the Swedish countryside.
15
For essentially the same reason as with the variable population density we have interacted a dummy variable north
with the log of cattle units per hectare arable and meadows. In the northern counties animals to a large extent grazed
on mountain pasture (fäbodvall). Thus the denominator in the ratio defining this variable did not have the same
importance in the northern counties.
21 The impact of increased animal output on emigration should probably primarily be interpreted as
reflecting an increase in and a more stable level of labour demand in the agricultural sector. The evolution
of wages for agricultural workers is more directly indicative of the evolution in the standard of living.
Increased wages led to less emigration both in the short and in the long run. The estimated long-run
coefficient for the Swedish/US real wage rate of –2.7 shows that a ten percent increase in agricultural
wages led to a decrease in emigration by almost 0.3 per thousand inhabitants.16 This is a powerful effect
since the Swedish/US real wage ratio increased by roughly thirty percent in the period 1881–1910.
Another variable which illustrate an increase in the living standard is the decline in the percentage share
of poor relief recipients that took place between 1881 and 1910; the county average declined from 4.28 to
3.48. Our estimated long-run multiplier tells us that an increase by one percentage unit in the share of
poor relief recipients would have increased emigration by 0.5 per thousands. Accordingly the decline in
share of poor relief recipients in the countryside led to a decrease in emigration by 0.4 per thousands. It
appears that the poverty rate had its greatest impact on emigration in the short run. Our estimated shortrun multiplier suggests that an increase in the share of poor relief recipients by one percentage unit in a
year would have led to a rise in emigration by 2.3 per thousands, which is a substantial effect.
Many historical studies on emigration have pointed out the importance of emigration tradition for
explaining regional differences in emigration. Our variable emigration tradition has a statistically
significant and substantially important effect on the emigration rate both in the short and long run. The
way we have constructed the variable it cannot explain changes over time in average county emigration
rates, but as will be shown below it is an important variable for explaining regional differences in
emigration rates.
In Table 4 we also show estimates for men and women separately. If we look at the long-run multipliers
the results are similar to the ones presented in the first column of the table. One important difference,
though, is that those variables reflecting economic motives behind emigration and conditions in the rural
labour market yield higher and also more significant estimates for men than for women. For example,
changes in population density, number of cattle units and especially the Swedish/US wage rate had larger
effects on male emigration rates. We believe that this reflected first of all that the male emigration rate
was generally higher and also that women’s emigration appeared to have been less sensitive to the state of
16
It should be noted that this result is not dependent on the chosen Swedish cost of living index to deflate nominal
wages or the US real wage index used to deflate Swedish real wages. The variable enters the regression in
logarithmic form and the same cost of living index and US real wage index is used to deflate all county wages. Since
we include time dummies for each year the estimated slope coefficients are not affected by our choice of deflators,
only the time dummies are affected. We could equally well have used nominal wages in the regression and still
obtained the same slope coefficients.
22 the business cycle, perhaps because employment in the typical jobs that women obtained in the US, such
as maids, were less sensitive to fluctuations in the business cycle.
6.
Simulations with the model
6.1. Accounting for long-run changes in emigration
The number of emigrant from the Swedish countryside (un-weighted average of 24 counties) to the US
declined between 1881 and 1900 by 5.16 per thousands, from 8.35 to 3.19. Between 1881 and 1910 the
corresponding change was -4.32. In Table 5 we summarize what our regressions tell us about the
determinants of this decline in the emigration rate. We calculate the predicted change in the number of
emigrants per thousand by multiplying the point estimates for our long-run multipliers of the various
variables with the actual change that took place in these variables in 1881–1900 and in 1881–1910. We do
this calculation for an overall average of all counties as well as for averages of the eastern and western
counties separately.17 For Sweden as a whole, as well as for Sundbärg’s eastern and western regions,
variables indicating increased economic wellbeing and increased and more stable labour demand (number
of cattle units per hectare, the Swedish/US real wage rate, percentage share of poor relief recipients)
explain the lion share of the long-term decline in emigration rates. Demographic variables are fairly
unimportant for explaining the long-term evolution of emigration rates. Only in the case of the western
region was a long-term decline in population density of substantial importance for the long-term decline
in emigration rates. In these counties, where populations pressure was the highest in the 1880’s,
emigration and migration to the cities, and also a decline in the natural population increase, resulted in a
long-term decline in population density.
As can be seen the model generally predicts the evolution of emigration better for the western than for the
eastern counties. This is to be expected since there are more counties in the western region and therefore
more observations influencing the estimation results. For the entire period 1881–1910 our model explains
72 percent of the decline in emigration rates. The corresponding figure for the western counties is 83
percent and for the eastern counties 52 percent.
6.2. Accounting for persistent regional differences in emigration
We have seen that there were substantial and persistent regional differences in emigration rates. Since the
same type of economic variables by and large explained the long-term evolution of emigration rates in
17
Our model generally predicts emigration from the northern counties badly, due to the radically different nature of
the agricultural sector in these counties, so we do not present any separate simulations for the northern counties.
23 both regions they cannot explain much of those persistent regional differences. We now turn to an
exploration of what determined them. In the left panel of Table 6 we give the arithmetic means for our
variables calculated over the entire period 1881–1910, for all counties and for the eastern and western
regions separately. From the differences between the regional means and the overall means of the
variables we then calculate what change in comparison to the overall mean in the emigration rate our
estimated long-run multipliers predict for Sundbärg’s regions. For example, compared to the overall mean
population density in the east deviated by –0.24 (=0.87–1.11). This leads to a lower predicted emigration
rate in the east compared to the overall mean by –2.0 (=8.32 x –0.24). If we sum all differences between
the columns in Table 6 representing the eastern and western regions, we see that the model on average
predicts an higher emigration rate by 3.66 per thousand in the west compared to the east. The average
factual difference in the emigration rate between the two regions was 3.34, so the model performs well in
explaining regional differences in emigration.
Most of the difference between the east and the west is explained by two variables: population density
and emigration tradition. Already Sundbärg and Emigrationsutredningen pointed out that population
pressure were considerably higher in the typically western counties than in the typically eastern counties.
This led to a higher rate of emigration from these counties which in its turn stimulated further emigration
through the “friends and relatives” effect. To a lesser extent the demographic variables, marriage rate and
twenty years lagged births per current population, also point in the same direction. Together these two
variables predict a yearly average of 0.6 more migrants per thousand inhabitants in the west than in the
east. However, they are compensated for by economic variables, particularly cattle units per hectare,
which predict slightly lower emigration in the west than in the east.
7.
Conclusions
We have set ourselves two main tasks in this paper: first to explain the long-run decline in emigration
from the Swedish countryside to the United States, from its height in the 1880s to its last wave in the first
decade of the twentieth century; secondly to explain persistent regional differences in the emigration rate.
We have done that by building a panel dataset for 24 Swedish counties observed over the period 1881–
1910, which we have explored with panel regression methods. Our data makes it possible to examine in a
common framework the time series and regional dimensions of the emigration.
It turns out that the long-run decline in emigration rates is explained by economic variables, which we
interpret as indicating increased standard of living and employment opportunities. Increased well-being in
the Swedish countryside, a catching up on US unskilled wages and more employment opportunities at
home made overseas emigration less attractive in 1910 than in the early 1880’s. However, these persistent
24 forces affected regions with high and low emigration rates alike and therefore cannot be used to explain
persistent regional differences. These regional differences are rather primarily explained by previous
differences in demographic behavior, with historical roots in different land-tenure patterns, which had
resulted in higher population density in counties which experienced high emigration rates. More people
on available land made it harder to gain access to land or employment, which stimulated emigration. This
in its turn led to further emigration through the “friends and relatives” effect.
25 Table 1: Age distribution of emigrants and emigration rates in different age groups, averages for the period 1880–1910 0–14 15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35– Percentage shares of all emigrants 15.6 20.9 26.5 15.4 8.1 13.4 Emigration per thousands in age group 2.9 13.4 19.5 12.9 7.7 3.1 Table 2: Descriptive statistics for variables mean
4.86
standard deviation, overall 3.67
standard deviation, between 2.32 standard deviation, within 2.88
Emigration to the US per thousands Births lagged 20 years per thousands of current population
28.00
3.15
2.30 2.20
Marriage rate 5.79
0.69
0.52 0.46
Population density 1.11
0.38
0.37 0.10
Percent crofters 4.24
1.77
1.65 0.74
Cattle units per hectare arable and meadow land 0.67
0.13
0.11 0.07
Crop per hectare arable 95.27
28.13
24.00 15.50
Swedish/US real wage 1.00
0.22
0.20 0.11
Percentage share, poor relief recipients 4.03
0.93
0.82 0.48
1.00
0.61
0.60 0.16
1)
2)
Emigration tradition 1)
2)
Since this variable is a ratio between index numbers we have scaled the overall mean to unity This variable is a ratio of two quotients. It does not have a natural scale and we have scaled the average value for each year to unity. 26 Table 3: Annual averages of variables for 1881, 1890, 1900 and 1910 for all counties and for different regions. Emigrants to the US rate, per 1000s Population density b)
Crop per hectare arable b)
Cattle units per hectare a) b)
Swedish/US real wage Percent poor relief recipients Percent crofters Marriage rate Births t‐20 per 1000s of current pop. Emigration tradition 1881 All East 1890
West
All
East
1900
West
All
East
1910
West
All East
Change 1881–1900
West
Change 1881–1910
All
East
West
All
East
West
8.35 7.36 10.22
5.71
3.56
8.52
3.19
1.57
5.03
4.30 2.11
5.26
‐5.16
‐5.79
‐5.19
‐4.05
‐5.25
‐4.96
1.15 83.2 0.59 0.78 4.29 4.47 6.10 28.34 0.89 71.38 0.58 0.74 3.97 5.53 6.27 26.63 1.23
94.24
0.67
0.72
4.88
4.58
5.65
29.96
1.10
95.22
0.65
0.77
4.29
4.39
5.83
26.09
0.86
88.31
0.63
0.76
3.97
5.4
6.16
24.91
1.12
106.95
0.70
0.67
4.83
4.56
5.19
28.47
1.11
106.16
0.70
0.96
3.84
4.24
5.76
27.85
0.86
104.41
0.67
0.93
3.57
4.84
5.93
26.74
1.08
126.44
0.74
0.84
4.1
4.58
5.36
29.38
1.12 110.12 0.73 1.00 3.48 3.56 5.63 25.95 0.89
104.56
0.68
1.01
3.23
4.33
5.84
24.42
1.07
129.10
0.80
0.94
3.33
3.52
5.37
26.33
‐0.04
27.60
18.64
22.32
‐0.45
‐0.23
‐0.34
‐0.49
‐0.03
46.27
15.52
25.65
‐0.4
‐0.69
‐0.34
0.11
‐0.15
34.17
10.45
16.58
‐0.78
0.00
‐0.29
‐0.58
‐0.03
32.36
23.73
27.98
‐0.81
‐0.91
‐0.47
‐2.39
0.00
46.48
17.24
37.08
‐0.74
‐1.20
‐0.43
‐2.21
‐0.16
36.99
19.40
30.99
‐1.55
‐1.06
‐0.28
‐3.63
1.00 0.76 1.33
1.00
0.71
1.38
1.00
0.67
1.42
1.00 0.64
1.40
0.00
‐0.09
0.09
0.00
‐0.12
0.07
Notes: a) The overall mean of the Swedish/US real wage ratio is set to unity in 1910 b) Changes 1881–1900 and 1881–1910 are in percentages 27 Table 4. Fixed effects regressions for all emigrants, male and female emigrants (dependent variable: number of emigrants per thousand inhabitants, mid‐year population). All
Male emigration
Dependent variable t-1
coeffic
ient
0.67
Stand.
err
0.05
pvalue
0.00
coeffic
ient
0.61
Dependent variable t-2
-0.26
0.05
0.00
-0.26
Δ Population density
3.21
2.24
0.17
3.12
Stand.
err
0.05
Female emigration
pvalue
0.00
coeffic
ient
0.60
Stand.
err
0.04
pvalue
0.00
0.04
0.00
-0.17
0.04
0.00
3.18
0.34
1.68
2.02
0.41
Δ log(Crop products per hectare)t-1
-0.84
0.23
0.00
-0.73
0.31
0.03
-0.78
0.18
0.00
Δ log(Cattle units per hectare)
-6.15
1.80
0.00
-8.01
2.31
0.00
-5.10
1.82
0.01
Δ log(North x Cattle units per hectare)
3.94
2.50
0.13
5.94
3.16
0.07
3.07
2.44
0.22
-1.77
1.05
0.11
-1.62
1.65
0.34
-0.02
0.91
0.98
Δ Poor relief recipients (percent)
2.32
0.68
0.00
2.94
0.87
0.00
1.92
0.59
0.00
Δ Crofters and cottagers (percent)
0.25
0.11
0.03
0.43
0.16
0.02
0.26
0.08
0.00
-0.29
0.12
0.03
-0.11
0.18
0.53
-0.28
0.09
0.01
Δ log(Swedish/US real wage)
Δ Marriage rate
Δ(Births lagged 20 years/current population)
Population density t-1
North x Population density t-1
log(Crop products per hectare)t-2
log(Cattle units per hectare) t-2
North xlog( Cattle units per hectare) t-2
log(Swedish/US real wage) t-1
Poor relief recipients (percent) t-1
Crofters and cottagers (percent) t-1
0.12
0.04
0.01
0.19
0.07
0.01
0.09
0.03
0.01
4.95
0.95
0.00
7.40
1.31
0.00
4.12
0.76
0.00
-2.94
1.71
0.10
-4.96
2.61
0.07
-2.42
1.25
0.07
0.22
0.38
0.57
0.77
0.58
0.20
0.39
0.28
0.17
-4.38
0.62
0.00
-6.29
0.88
0.00
-3.77
0.48
0.00
1.11
1.01
0.29
2.11
1.43
0.15
0.82
0.70
0.25
-1.59
0.89
0.09
-2.29
1.25
0.08
-0.89
0.66
0.19
0.28
0.21
0.20
0.32
0.30
0.30
0.28
0.19
0.14
0.18
0.07
0.01
0.35
0.10
0.00
0.12
0.05
0.04
-0.39
0.19
0.06
-0.46
0.29
0.13
-0.39
0.16
-2.40
0.02
0.03
0.51
0.05
0.05
0.30
0.04
0.03
1.51
Emigration tradition t-1
1.43
0.67
0.05
1.48
0.86
0.10
1.51
0.60
2.54
N
672
672
672
R2 within
0.85
0.84
0.84
R2 between
0.62
0.47
0.47
R2 overall
0.72
0.61
0.61
Marriage rate t-1
(Births lagged 20 years/current population)
t-1
Long-run multipliers
Population density
North x Population density
log(Crop products per hectare)
log(cattle units per hectare)
North x log(Cattle units per hectare) t-2
log(Swedish/US real wage)
8.32
1.53
0.00
11.47
1.89
0
7.33
1.30
0.00
-4.94
2.86
0.08
-7.68
3.99
0.05
-4.31
2.15
0.05
0.15
0.37
0.66
0.57
1.19
0.90
0.18
0.70
0.49
-7.36
0.98
0.00
-9.75
1.32
0.00
-6.71
0.79
0.00
1.86
1.70
0.28
3.27
2.20
0.14
1.45
1.22
0.24
-2.67
1.50
0.08
-3.55
2.00
0.08
-1.57
1.16
0.18
Poor relief recipients
0.47
0.36
0.19
0.50
0.47
0.29
0.51
0.33
0.13
Crofters and cottagers
0.31
0.11
0.00
0.54
0.15
0
0.21
0.09
0.03
-0.65
0.33
0.05
-0.71
0.45
0.12
-0.69
0.30
0.02
Births lagged 20 years/current population
0.04
0.06
0.52
0.08
0.08
0.3
0.07
0.05
0.15
Emigration tradition
2.40
1.10
0.03
2.29
1.3
0.08
2.68
1.02
0.01
Marriage rate
Note: Robust standard errors that allow for correlations inside the cross‐sectional units. 28 Table 5: Predicted change from estimated model 1881–1900 and 1881–1910 Population density Long‐run multiplier 8.32 Predicted change 1881–1900
overall
east
west
overall
Predicted change 1881–1910
east west
‐0.33
‐0.25
‐1.25
‐0.25
0.00 ‐1.33
0.37 0.10
0.17
0.13
0.12
0.17 0.14
Cattle units per hectare ‐7.36 ‐1.37
‐1.14
‐0.77
‐1.75
‐1.27 ‐1.43
Sweden/US real wage ‐2.67 ‐0.60
‐0.68
‐0.44
‐0.75
‐0.99 ‐0.83
Poor relief recipients 0.47 ‐0.21
‐0.19
‐0.37
‐0.38
‐0.35 ‐0.73
Crofters and cottagers 0.31 ‐0.07
‐0.21
0.00
‐0.28
‐0.37 ‐0.33
‐0.67 0.23
0.23
0.19
0.31
0.29 0.19
Births t‐20 per 1000s of current pop. 0.04 ‐0.02
0.00
‐0.02
‐0.10
‐0.09 ‐0.15
Emigration tradition t‐1 2.40 0.00
‐0.22
0.22
0.00
‐0.29 0.17
Crop product per hectare Marriage rate Predicted emigration rate ‐2.27
‐2.29
‐2.31
‐3.07
‐2.90 ‐4.30
Factual emigration rate ‐5.16
‐5.79
‐5.19
‐4.05
‐5.25 ‐4.96
Table 6: Predicted regional differences (Sundbärg’s regions) from estimated model Arithmetic mean of variables 1881–1910 Long‐run multi‐ plier overall east Predicted difference in emigration rate from overall mean east west west Predicted difference east–west Population density 8.32 1.11
0.87
1.12
‐2.00
0.08 ‐2.08
Crop product per hectare 0.37 95.27
89.19
109.39
‐0.02
0.05 ‐0.08
Cattle units per hectare ‐7.36 0.67
0.65
0.73
0.22
‐0.66 0.88
Swedish/US real wage ‐2.67 1.00
0.96
0.92
0.11
0.21 ‐0.11
Poor relief recipients 0.47 4.03
3.74
4.34
‐0.14
0.15 ‐0.28
Crofters and cottagers 0.31 4.24
5.10
4.44
0.27
0.06 0.20
‐0.65 5.79
6.04
5.36
‐0.16
0.28 ‐0.44
Births t‐20 per 1000s of current pop. Emigration tradition 0.04 28.00
26.42
29.58
‐0.06
0.06 ‐0.13
2.40 1.00
0.70
1.38
‐0.72
0.91 ‐1.63
Sum predicted deviation from overall mean in emigration rate Factual emigration rate ‐2.51
1.15 ‐3.66
‐1.73
1.61 ‐3.34
Marriage rate 4.86
3.13
6.47
29 Figure 1.Number of emigrants per thousand inhabitants, 1851 –1913 10
8
6
4
2
0
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
00
05
10
Source: Bidrag till Sveriges officiella statistik, series A 30 Figure 2.Difference in yearly GDP growth rates (2‐year moving averages) between USA and Sweden and total numbers of Swedish emigrants to the US, 1870–1913 50,000
12
40,000
8
30,000
4
20,000
0
10,000
-4
0
-8
1875
1880
1885
1890
1895
1900
1905
1910
Difference in US-Swedish GDP growth rates, percentages, 2-year moving average (right scale)
Number of Swedish emigrants to the US (left scale)
Sources: US GDP (Maddison 1991, p. Table A6), Swedish GDP (Krantz and Schön 2007) 31 Figure 3. Number of emigrants to the US per thousand inhabitants, by gender, 1871–1913 14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1875
1880
1885
1890
1895
1900
1905
1910
Emigration per thousands, women
Emigration per thousands, men
Sources: Bidrag till Sveriges officiella statistik, series A 32 Figure 4. Number of emigrants per thousand inhabitants, rural and urban areas, 1881–1910 12
10
8
6
4
2
1885
1890
1895
1900
1905
1910
Emigration per thousands, countryside
Emigration per thousands, towns
Sources: Bidrag till Sveriges officiella statistik, series A 33 Figure 5: Emigration by county from the Swedish countryside to the USA, emigrants per thousand inhabitants (average 1881‐1910) Sources: Bidrag till Sveriges officiella statistik, series A Note: The number of counties in each size class in parenthesis after the legends 34 Figure 6: SSundbärg´s m
main demograaphic regions and subdivisions Source: Adapted from Lowell (1987
7, p. 74) 35 Figure 7: Emigration per thousands inhanbitants in the countryside, Sundbärg’s main demographic regions 14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
02
04
06
08
10
Emigration per thousands, eastern counties
Emigration per thousands, western counties
Emigration per thousands, northern counties
Sources: Bidrag till Sveriges officiella statistik, series A Note: The regions as defined in the graph does not exactly correspond to Sundbärg’s regions, see footnote 11. 36 Appendix: Sources for data
Emigration. Bidrag till Sveriges Officiella Statistik, serie A, Befolkningsstatistik.
Population. Bidrag till Sveriges Officiella Statistik, serie A, Befolkningsstatistik.
Number of living births 1861–1890. Bidrag till Sveriges Officiella Statistik, serie A,
Befolkningsstatistik.
Cattle units. Bidrag till Sveriges Officiella Statistik, serie N, Jordbruk och boskapsskötsel
Crop product output. Information on the output of crop products derives from Swedish Agricultural
Statistics. Bidrag till Sveriges Officiella Statistik, Årsväxtberättelser. We have valued the output given in
physical units by prices given in (Lindahl et al. 1937, pp. 53-54). The price data from this source has also
been used to construct a price index that we have used to deflate the current output value.
Swedish/US real wage. Male rural wages as given by Jörberg (1972). Jörberg does not give any data
wage data for Blekinge County up to 1906. For Blekinge we have complemented Jörberg with wage data
from Sweden’s Official Statistics, Bidrag till Sveriges Officiella Statistik, serie N, Jordbruk och
boskapsskötsel. We have deflated the wage data with Myrdal’s cost of living index (Myrdal 1933) and
divided it by unskilled US real wages as given by Williamson (1995).
Number of crofters and cottagers. Bidrag till Sveriges Officiella Statistik, serie N, Jordbruk och
boskapsskötsel.
Number of poor relief recipients. Bidrag till Sveriges Officiella Statistik, serie U, Kommunernas
fattigvård och finanser.
Number of marriages. Bidrag till Sveriges Officiella Statistik, serie A, Befolkningsstatistik.
37 References
Statistical sources:
Bidrag till Sveriges Officiella Statistik, serie A, Befolkningsstatistik
Bidrag till Sveriges Officiella Statistik, serie N, Jordbruk och boskapsskötsel
Bidrag till Sveriges Officiella Statistik, Årsväxtberättelser
Bidrag till Sveriges Officiella Statistik, serie U, Kommunernas fattigvård och finanser
Literature:
ÅKERMAN, S., CASSEL, P. G. and JOHANSSON, E. (1971). Befolkningsrörlighetens bakgrundsvariabler :
ett försök med aid-analys : preliminär forskningsrapport. Uppsala: Univ., Hist. inst.
ÅKERMAN, S., NORMAN, H. and JOHANSSON, E. (1979). Splitting background variables: Aid-analysis
applied to migration and literacy research. Journal of European Economic History 8, pp. 157-92.
BALTAGI, B. H. (2001). Econometric analysis of panel data. Second edition. Chichester: Wiley.
CARLSSON, S. (1976). Chronology and composition of Swedish emigration to America. In H. Runblom
and H. Norman (eds.), From Sweden to America. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, pp.
114-48.
ENTORF, H. (1997). Random walks with drifts: Nonsense regression and spurious fixed-effect estimation.
Journal of Econometrics 80, pp. 287-96.
GOULD, J. D. (1979). European inter-continental emigration 1815-1914: patterns and causes. Journal of
European Economic History 8, pp. 593-679.
HATTON, T. J. (1995a). A model of Scandinavian emigration, 1870-1913. European Economic Review 39,
pp. 557-64.
HATTON, T. J. (1995b). A model of UK emigration, 1870-1913. Review of Economics and Statistics 77,
pp. 417-15.
HATTON, T. J. and WILLIAMSON, J. G. (1993). After the famine: emigration from Ireland, 1850-1913.
Journal of Economic History 53, pp. 575-600.
HÖIJER, E. (1921). Sveriges uppdelning på naturliga jordbruksområden. Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift, pp.
15-237, 321-48.
JEROME, H. (1926). Migration and business cycles. New York: Publications of the national bureau of
economic research.
JÖRBERG, L. (1972). A history of prices in Sweden 1732-1914. Volume I Sources, Methods Tables. Lund:
Gleerup.
KÄLVEMARK, A.-S. (1972). Reaktionen mot utvandringen. Emigrationsfrågan i svensk debatt och politik
1901-1904. Uppsala Läromedelsförlagen.
KRANTZ, O. and SCHÖN, L. (2007). Swedish Historical national Accounts 1800-2000. Lund: Almqvist &
Wicksell International.
LINDAHL, E., DAHLGREN, E. and KOCK, K. (1937). National Income of Sweden 1861-1930. Part Two.
Stockholm: Norstedt.
38 LOWELL, B. L. (1987). Scandinavian exodus. Demography and social development of 19th-century rural
communities. Boulder and London: Westview Press.
MADDISON, A. (1991). Dynamic forces in capitalist development: a long-run comparative view. Oxford:
oxford University Press.
MYRDAL, G. (1933). The cost of living in Sweden 1830-1933. Stockholm: Stockholm Economic Studies.
NICKEL, S. (1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 49, pp. 1417-26.
NILSSON, F. (1970). Emigrationen från Stockholm till Nordamerika 1880-1893. en studie i urban
utvandring. Stockholm: Studia Historica Upsaliensia.
NORMAN, H. (1974). Från Bergslagen till Nordamerika. Studier i migrationsmönster, social rörlighet och
demografisk struktur med utgångspunkt från Örebro län 1851-1915. Uppsala: Studia Historica
Upsaliensis.
NORMAN, H. (1976). The causes of emigration. An attempt at a multivariate analysis. In From Sweden to
America. A history of the migration. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, pp. 149-64.
O’ROURKE, K. H. and WILLIAMSON, J. G. (1999). Globalization and History: the Evolution of a
Nineteenth century Atlantic economy. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
PERSYN, D. and WESTERLUND, J. (2008). Error–correction–based cointegration tests for panel data. Stata
Journal 8, pp. 232-41.
PESARAN, M. H., SHIN, Y. and SMITH, R. P. (1999). Pooled mean group estimation of dynamic
heterogenous panels. Journal of the American Statistical Association 94, pp. 621-34.
PHILLIPS, P. C. B. and MOON, H., R. (1999). Linear regression limit theory for nonstationary panel data.
Econometrica 67, pp. 1057-111.
PHILLIPS, P. C. B. and MOON, H., R. (2000). Nonstationary panel data analysis: an overview of some
recent developments. Econometric Reviews 19, pp. 263-86.
PRADO, S. (2010). Fallacious convergence? Williamson’s real wage comparisons under scrutiny.
Cliometrica.
QUIGLEY, J. M. (1972). An economic model of Swedish emigration. Quarterly Journal of Economics 86,
pp. 111-26.
RONDAHL, B. (1972). Emigration, folkomflyttning och säsongsarbete i ett sågverksdistrikt i södra
Hälsingland 1865-1910. Söderdala kommun med särskild hänsyn till Ljusne industrisamhälle.
Uppsala: Studia Historica Upsaliensia.
RUNBLOM, H. and NORMAN, H. (Eds.) (1976). From Sweden to America. A History of the Migration.
Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
SONQUIST, J. A. and MORGAN, J. N. (1970). The detection of interaction effects : A report on a computer
program for the selection of optimal combinations of explanatory variables. Ann Arbor,.
SUNDBÄRG, G. (1910). Ekonomisk-statistisk beskrifning över Sverige solika landsdelar.
Emigrationsutredningen bilaga V. Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & söner.
SUNDBÄRG, G. (1913). Betänkande i utvandringsfrågan och därmed sammanhängade spörsmål.
Stockholm: Norstedt.
TEDEBRAND, L.-G. (1972). Västernorrland och Nordamerika 1875-1913. Utvandring och återinvandring.
Uppsala: Studia Historica Upsaliensis.
TEDEBRAND, L.-G. (1976). Sources for the history of Swedish emigration. In H. Runblom and H. Norman
(eds.), From Sweden to America. A history of migration. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis,
pp. 76-93.
39 THOMAS, B. (1954). Migration and economic growth. A study of Great Britain and the Atlantic economy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
THOMAS, B. (1972). Migration and urban development: A reappraisal of British and American long
cycles. London: Methuen.
THOMAS, D. S. (1941). Social and economic aspects of Swedish population movements 1750-1933. New
York: MacMillan.
WESTERLUND, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and
Statistics 69, pp. 709-48.
WILKINSON, M. (1967). Evidences of long swings in the growth of Swedish population and related
economic variables, 1860-1965. Journal of Economic History 27, pp. 17-38.
WILLIAMSON, J. G. (1995). The evolution of global labor markets since 1830: background evidence and
hypotheses. Explorations in Economic History 32, pp. 141-96.
WINBERG, C. (1975). Folkökning och proletarisering. Kring den sociala strukturomvandlingen på
Sveriges landsbygd under den agrara revolutionen. Göteborg: Historiska institutionen.
WINBERG, C. (1988). Öst och Väst i svensk samhällsutveckling. In I. Hammarström (ed.) Loklat,
regionalt, centralt - analysnivåer i historisk forskning. Stockholm: stadshistoriska institutet.
WOHLIN, N. (1908). Torpare, backstugu- och inhysesklassserna. Emigrationsutredningen bilaga IX.
Stockholm: P. A. Norstedt & söner.
WOHLIN, N. (1909). Den jordbruksidkande befolknngen i Sverige 1751-1900. Emigrationsutredningen
bilaga IX. Stockholm: P. a. Norstedt & söner.
WOOLDRIDGE, J. M. (2003). Introductory econometrics 2.e. Mason, Ohio: Thomson South-Western.
40