FAMILY AND SEX-SPECIFIC U.S. IMMIGRATION FROM EUROPE, 1870-1910:

A PANEL DATA STUDY OF RATES AND COMPOSITION

by

Michael J. GreenwoodUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Research QuestionsWhy were historical U.S. immigrant flows from certain countries at

certain times oriented relatively more toward males, whereas those from other countries were oriented relatively less in this way? In short, why did males and females respond differently to economic differentials and other factors and why did the sex composition of U.S. immigration differ across source countries and over time in the observed ways?

Moreover, did intact-family migrants respond differently to various incentives than lone male migrants who moved as part of a family strategy? And did single male and female migrants respond differently than those who were part of an intact family or those who moved in connection with a family strategy?

“Sex composition” refers to the fraction of immigrants who were female (and male).

OUTLINE

1. Introduction2. Motivation3. Theoretical rationale4. Data

a. U.S. immigration data b. Source-country characteristics

5. Methodology for dealing with composition6. Econometric approach7. Empirical findings8. Summary and conclusions

Why study sex differentials in migration?

1. Virtually every study of historical U.S. immigration implicitly assumes that all the migrants were destined to join the labor force—clearly an inappropriate assumption where females are concerned. (No distinction is made regarding who was migrating.)

2. In part because females had lower LFPRs and lower earnings than their male counterparts, they made a lesser contribution to the economy through formal labor markets.

3. Segmented labor markets could have driven females into lower-paying (perhaps service) occupations and/or could have discouraged them from participating in the labor force. In either case their contributions to GDP through formal channels would be reduced.

4. The child-bearing capacity of female migrants increases the potential for growth of the second-generation immigrant population in the destination.

5. Females have longer life expectancy than males. (Thus, societal costs and benefits differ for males and females toward the end of their life cycles.)

6. Various types of costs (e.g., crime) are more strongly associated with males.

7. Return migration rates were considerably lower for females.

• Donna Gabaccia, “Women of the Mass Migrations: From Minority to Majority, 1820-1930”

“Historical studies of international female migration scarcely exist” (1996, p.91).

• United Nations. The Migration of Women: Methodological Issues in the Measurement and Analysis of Internal and International Migration laments

“the neglect of research on women’s migration” (1994, p. xv).

Background Literature

Somewhere between few and no analytical studies specifically on U.S. immigration of males versus females or of females alone, but many on overall U.S. immigration.

Some descriptive/interpretative studies beginning with Ravenstein (1885).

Much tabular material that identifies the sex of migrants.

Ravenstein’s seventh “law” of migration is that “females are migratory than males” (p. 199).

Dorothy Swain Thomas, in her Research Memorandum on Migration Differentials (1938) devotes a chapter to “sex differentials.” She was concerned with internal migration and not international migration and concluded with the following question:

“What opportunities, social and economic, are offered young men and young women migrants in what types of cities?... How far is migration an adjustment to these opportunities?” (p. 68-69).

Tyree and Donato (1986), regarding contemporary U.S. immigration, write that “the majority of immigrant women do not move alone, but are married and move with their husbands” (p. 40).

TABLE APERCENTAGES OF 1913 MALE AND FEMALE U.S. IMMIGRANTS 14 TO 44

WHO WERE SINGLE, BY NATIONALITY

Nationality Male (%) Female (%)

Dutch and FlemishEnglishFrenchGermanIrishItalianPortugueseScandinavianSpanish

61.965.865.863.386.652.351.488.166.5

36.454.853.556.987.042.755.581.844.9

Source: Compiled from data in the Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration, 1913, 50-51.

Conceptually, I distinguish three types of migrants: 1. intact-family migrants, who presumably were half male and half

female; 2. other family migrants, some of whom (presumably primarily adult

males) moved as part of a family-migration strategy with an initial intention of returning home at some future date and some of whom (presumably primarily adult females and children) moved to join a spouse who migrated earlier; and

3. single, independent migrants, who moved with the intention of starting a new life in the U.S. or perhaps with the initial intention of returning home at a later date.

t

w

t

w

t

w

t

w sif of

t

m

t

m

t

m

t

m sif of

s

w

t

s

of

w

t

of

if

w

t

if

t

w sofif

s

m

t

s

of

m

t

of

if

m

t

if

t

m sofif

and (1)

(2)

and (3)

(4)

5.0if

m

if

w ifif

0.1of

m

of

w ofof

For 1913 and 1914 the values of w/t, m/t, s/t, ws/s, and ms/s are known. Thus, if different assumptions are made regarding the values of wof / of and mof / of (e.g., 0.2 and 0.8, respectively), equations (3) and (4) can be solved for the values of if/t and of/t, and this computation can be done for each source country.

Consider Equations (3) and (4). If we assume that intact families (if) are half male and half female, then

Moreover,

Table 1 Selected Characteristics of male and female U.S. immigrants, 14 to 44, by nationality, 1913 Nationality Female Single Females Males Married Single

who were

who were

who were

who were

married married female female Dutch & Flemish 30.1 55.0 62.5 37.5 41.9 20.6 English 41.6 62.8 42.6 33.4 47.6 38.0 French 42.0 62.2 44.4 33.0 49.4 37.6 German 41.1 61.9 40.7 36.3 43.9 39.4 Irish 48.2 87.6 11.9 13.0 46.0 48.5 Italian 19.9 51.0 55.4 47.4 22.5 17.4 Portuguese 32.2 53.9 41.9 48.1 29.2 34.7 Scandinavian 33.0 86.6 17.2 11.6 42.1 31.6 Spanish 16.4 63.6 53.4 33.1 23.9 12.0 Source: U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Immigration. Annual Report of the Commissioner General of Immigration to the Secretary of Labor: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1913. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1914, Table VII-B.

Based on European emigration statistics, Hatton and Williamson (1998) report

• regarding the Irish that “Most of the emigrants were single. The percentage of all emigrants aged 15 and over who were married or widowed amounted to only

10 to 15 percent of the total” (p. 85);

• and regarding the Scandinavians that “They were mainly young, 60 percent falling in the 15-29 age group; they were mainly male, about three fifths; and they were mainly single, about four fifths” (p. 68).

Table 2Economic activity in their source countries of U.S. foreign-born males and females, 16 and over, by source country, circa 1908

CountryNumber Worked Worked Worked Number Worked Worked Workedreporting for wages w/o wages for profit reporting for wages w/o wages for profit

Belgium 85 92.9% 2.4% 3.5% 67 43.3% 3.0% 0.0%

France 155 94.8 0.0 2.6 131 33.6 0.0 0.8

Germany 890 73.5 14.5 8.4 692 29.9 8.1 0.9

Ireland 534 44.9 38.0 6.2 497 17.3 5.6 0.2

Italy 3,455 59.0 17.0 21.4 1,995 19.0 8.1 1.4

Netherlands 82 89.0 4.9 2.4 71 47.9 2.8 0.0

Norway 23 65.2 21.7 4.3 24 41.7 12.5 0.0

Portugal 272 53.7 28.7 11.8 259 12.7 1.9 1.2

Spain 56 76.8 17.9 3.6 20 10.0 5.0 0.0

Sweden 452 66.8 24.3 4.6 394 37.8 9.6 0.3

United Kingdom 591 93.7 2.0 1.4 498 32.3 0.2 0.4

Source: Reports of the Immigration Commission, Abstracts of Reports of the Immigration Commission,Senate Document No. 747, Government Printing Office, 1911, pgs. 357 and 359.

Note: Figures in the original document are based on race. In this table, races are reported by country.aces are reported by country.

Males Females

Table 3 Sources of family income of the U.S. foreign-born by source country, Circa 1908

Country Number of Husband Husband Husband Husband, Husband Children Other Allfamilies and wife and wife, and and sources

children children boarders

Belgium 79 43.0% 1.3% 21.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 30.3% 100.0%

France 130 30.8 26.2 14.6 1.5 3.8 0.8 22.3 100.0

Germany 884 37.3 2.8 22.6 1.6 9.6 1.6 24.5 100.0

Ireland 675 33.2 1.8 26.5 0.7 6.4 7.9 23.5 100.0

Italy 1,955 40.1 5.8 8.7 0.9 26.7 1.4 16.4 100.0

Netherlands 129 46.5 0.8 35.7 0.0 3.9 0.8 12.3 100.0

Norway 26 46.2 0.0 26.9 0.0 0.0 3.8 23.1 100.0

Portugal 258 29.5 17.1 14.3 1.9 7.4 1.2 28.6 100.0

Spain 37 56.8 2.7 13.5 0.0 10.8 0.0 16.2 100.0

Sweden 460 44.3 1.1 23.0 0.0 6.1 0.4 25.1 100.0

United Kingdom 637 39.9 4.6 26.0 1.0 5.8 2.8 19.9 100.0

Source: Reports of the Immigration Commission, Abstracts of Reports of the Immigration Commission,Senate Document No. 747, Government Printing Office, 1911, p.415.

Note: Figures in the original document are based on race of the head of the family. In this table, races are reported by country.

Percent of families having entire income from

Two observations:

1. males were more likely to be labor-force participants than females, so males were more likely to migrate based on their own economic incentives, and

2. nevertheless, females and children were important contributors to the family enterprise in the U.S., so family migration decisions must be studied as well as those of single, unattached males and females.

Hypotheses

• Because males were more likely than females to participate in formal labor markets in both their source countries and the U.S., males should have been more responsive to economic incentives than females.

• Those factors that raised the probability that females were part of the pool of potential economic migrants also should have raised the proportion of the total flow that was female.

These hypotheses are going to direct me to certain types of data (variables).

• Variables that relate to differential economic opportunity should be of particular importance in influencing the ratio of economic to tied migrants.

• Variables pertinent to the labor force participation of females in source countries should serve to place females in the pool of potential economic migrants to the U.S.

• Variables relating to the costs of migration may differ systematically for the two types of migrants.

Data

Should the study use U.S. immigration data or emigration data from various European source countries?

Answer: U.S. data.1. U.S. data have the advantage of being more or less

consistent in terms of the definition (and measurement) of an immigrant.

2. European source countries did not systematically report annual emigration statistics, by sex, for very many countries of destination.

3. I know English.

Countries that form the data base:

1. Belgium 2. Denmark 3. France 4. Germany 5. Ireland 6. Italy 7. Netherlands 8. Norway 9. Portugal 10. Spain 11. Sweden 12. Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales)

Period Studied

1870-1910—observations: 41 x 12 = 492

a. 1870-1889—20 x 12 = 240

b. 1890-1910—21 x 12 = 252

Historical U.S. statistics relating to the sex of immigrants are reported in two ways:

1. by country of origin (for the 12 countries), and 2. by “race or people” (for only 9 nationalities).

Example for 1910: immigration from Ireland: 29,855 immigration of the Irish: 38,382

immigration from England, Scotland, and Wales: 68,941 immigration of the English, Scottish, Welsh: 80,354

Problems with migration data (i.e., dependent variables)

1870-1910 a. For the United Kingdom for 1870 and and 1871, respectively, 18.0% of all males (17,084) and 11.1% of all males (9,128), as well as 18.4% of all females (12,104) and 11.4% of all females (6,914), did not report their origin as England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. b. Immigrant sex by country of origin was not reported for 1893, 1894, and 1895.

Fig. 1. U.S. immigrant sex ratios by source country, 1870-1910

Fig. 1D. Italy, Spain, Portugal

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Year

Sex r

ati

o

Italy Spain Portugal

Fig. 1A. Ireland, Great Britain, Germany

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Year

Sex r

ati

o

Ireland G.B. Germany

Fig. 1B. Sweden, Denmark, Norway

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Year

Sex R

ati

o

Sweden Denmark Norway

Fig. 1C. Netherlands, France, Belgium

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Year

Sex r

ati

o

Netherlands France Belgium

TABLE BSEX COMPOSITION OF U.S. IMMIGRATION, 1821-1990

Period Sex Ratio Period Sex Ratio

1821-30a

1831-40a

1841-50a

1851-60a

1861-70a

1871-80a

1881-90a

1891-1900a

1901-10a

222.3179.8146.3137.1153.3159.1156.6163.7230.2

1911-20a

1921-30b

1931-40b

1941-50b

1951-60b

1961-70b

1971-80bc

1981-90def

1991-2000ef

171.1125.1

76.667.785.081.188.499.385.2

Notes:a.Source: Ferenczi and Willcox (1929), United States Table VII.b.Source: Houstoun, Kramer, and Barrett (1984), Table A-1.c.Excludes 1980.d.Source: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (1991), Table 11.e.Excludes persons legalized under provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. f.Source: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2002), Table 12.

Sex ratio of immigration from Europe 1914: 185.6 (268.6 for Italy) 1918: 147.9 (46.7 for Italy) 1921: 125.1 (186.1 for Italy) 1922: 84.6 1929: 85.9 (52.5 for Italy)

Data References

Ferenczi, Ime and Walter F. Willcox. International Migrations. Volume I: Statistics. New York: NBER, 1929.

Reports of the Immigration Commission. Statistical Review of immigration 1850-1900: Distribution of Immigrants 1850-1900. Senate Documents of the 61st Congress, 3rd

Session, Volume 20, 1911.

TABLE 4 THE SEX COMPOSITION OF U.S. IMMIGRATION, BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH AND BY DECADE, 1870-1910

1870-1879 1880-1889 1890-1899 1900-1910

Male Female Sex ratio Male Female

Sex ratio Male Female

Sex ratio Male Female

Sex ratio

Denmark

Ireland

Great Britain

Sweden

Gernany

France

Belgium

Netherlands

Norway

Italy

Spain

Portugal

18,705

217,565

351,545

55,850

441,424

46,180

4,864

8,796

55,525

35,216

4,206

9,387

10,573

204,699

226,902

34,329

310,345

25,721

2,127

5,471

33,119

11,080

1,334

4,584

176.9

106.3

154.9

162.7

142.2

179.5

228.7

160.8

167.7

317.8

315.3

204.8

53,408

346,036

494,697

249,439

838,110

31,485

12,089

31,459

114,317

211,766

3,120

9,918

31,934

328,025

310,414

151,891

607,071

16,708

6,649

21,256

70,794

55,894

875

5,268

167.2

105.5

159.4

164.2

138.1

188.4

181.8

148.0

161.5

378.9

356.6

188.3

34,054

189,170

196,382

131,991

318,856

21,201

12,763

17,685

62,760

452,547

7,208

14,804

22,617

216,540

132,377

107,257

259,307

14,415

6,879

11,664

36,050

151,250

1,981

11,070

150.6

87.4

148.3

123.1

123.0

147.1

185.5

151.6

174.1

299.2

363.9

133.7

43,530

177,347

320,870

159,646

211,514

44,458

28,618

31,537

129,304

1,689,084

22,630

44,722

24,681

197,438

208,020

108,538

148,491

30,660

14,213

18,460

70,786

456,628

5,660

28,645

176.8

89.8

154.2

147.1

142.4

145.0

201.4

170.8

182.7

369.9

399.8

156.1

Source: Ferenczi and Willcox (1929), United States Table IX.

Problems with Independent Variables

The major issue here is that I had to develop annual time-series data for each country and each period. This was accomplished by

• Interpolation and• Extrapolation, which included (for birth and death rates

for many countries) estimating models to reveal “latent” variables.

Note: Such procedures suppress year-to-year fluctuations in certain variables for certain time spans, but they reflect long term trends and capture cross-sectional differences, which are far greater for any given year than any year-to-year fluctuations for any given country.

Greenwood, Michael J., John M. McDowell, and Donald M. Waldman, “A Model of the Skill Composition of US Immigration,” Applied Economics, 1996.

Greenwood, Michael J., and John M. McDowell, Legal U.S. Immigration: Influences on Gender, Age, and Skill Composition. Kalamazoo: W.E. UPJOHN Institute for Employment Research, 1999.

Greenwood, Michael J., John M. McDowell, and Matt Wierman, “Source-Country Social Programs and the Age Composition of Legal US immigrants,” Journal of Public Economics, 2003.

Greenwood, Michael J., “Modeling the Age and Age Composition of Late 19th Century U.S. Immigrants from Europe,” Explorations in Economic History, 2007.

• Let i represent source country, j independent variable, t year, and s sex. The share of immigration of a given type is the dependent variable and may be expressed in the following way, where Sist represents the share of total U.S. immigration from country i, of sex s, during year t:

istisjt

n

j sjsist XS 1

12

1 s s

.,02

1 js sj

Econometric Strategy

For each regression, the hypothesis that the individual effects are correlated with the regressors (i.e., random effects) is tested.

In every case, this hypothesis (and thus

random effects) is rejected.

For each regression, I also test the exogeneity of the HT instruments.

Econometric Procedures

Hausman-Taylor Instrumental Variable estimators:

• Account for unobserved country-specific effects

• Account for the correlation (endogeneity) between certain variables of the model and unobserved country-specific effects

• Allow the estimation of coefficients on variables that are temporally invariant (like distance)

Mist (or Sist) = βi + δt + λ1sv1ist + λ2sv2ist + λ3sv3ist + єist , (1)

where Mist = the rate of migration of sex group s from country i to the U.S. in year t; Sist = the share of i’s migration to the U.S. in year t that was sex s; βi = fixed country effects; δt = fixed time effects; v1ist = a vector of variables that reflects the differential advantage between the U.S. and country i; v2ist = a vector of variables that reflects relative migration costs, including both direct entry costs and skill transferability costs associated with moving from i to the U.S.; v3ist = a vector of control variables; λas = vectors of unknown parameters for sex s, for a = 1,…,3; and єist = random errors.

Mist = βi + δt + αxit + γzi + єist, i=1,…,12; t=1,…,41, (2)

where Mist is migration of sex s from country i in year t. Next we partition the set of explanatory variables into two groups, paying close attention to the model’s time-invariant variables, distance, the dummy variable for English-speaking countries, and the dummy variable for countries in Southern Europe: [ xit | zi ] where xit is a Kx1 vector of variables that measures characteristics of country i in period t and zi is a Gx1 vector of time-invariant variables. (I drop the s subscript because each sex class has the same set of right-hand side variables.) In (3), α and γ are vectors of unknown parameters, єist is a random disturbance, and the vectors βi and δt are unobserved country-specific and time-specific variables, respectively.

Table 5The rate of sex-specific U.S. immigration from Europe, 1870-1910:Hausman-Taylor instrumental variable estimates and absolute t-ratios

Variables Males

Differential econ opportunites Relative per capita GDP, t -1 (x 1) β: 1.404 0.421 2.775 0.438 0.445 1.699 0.314 t : (2.910) (0.916) (3.498) (1.470) (1.354) (3.402) (0.849) Relative grth of GDP, t-1 to t-3 (x1) 6.881 8.741 7.273 3.555

(1.718) (2.163) (1.803 (1.443) Relative pcGDP * Ire/Scan (x 1) 3.971 2.117 1.697

(3.301) (2.582) (2.076) Relative pcGDP * South Europe (x 1) -1.819 -2.005

(1.843) (3.089) Pct males (females) in manu (x 1) -1.743 -2.167 9.123 -5.608 -11.009 -8.476 -10.496

(0.428) (0.624) (1.140) (2.939) (4.570) (4.058) (4.324) Pct males (females) in agric (x1) -1.846 -1.138

(1.860) (1.173)Costs of Migrating English spoken in i (z 2) 1.055 0.521 0.546 3.539 4.063 4.260 4.336

(0.626) (0.363) (0.273) (3.127) (2.951) (2.754) (2.708) Total migration prior 2 yrs. (x 2) 18.776 20.196 18.481 8.062 8.712 8.376 8.171

(9.256) (10.399) (9.308) (6.613) (6.995) (6.976) (6.600) Migrant stock (x2) 1.944 1.426 2.337 1.391 1.730 1.465 1.717

(2.357) (1.924) (3.011) (2.838) (3.425) (3.248) (3.343) Birth rate in i (x 1) -0.056

(1.436) Ireland/Scandinavia (z 1) 2.962 -2.027 1.124 -3.839 -3.527

(1.773) (0.895) (1.042) (1.994) (1.746) Southern Europe -1.661 -0.273 -0.929 2.501

(0.974) (0.117) (0.909) (1.560) Male(female)EAR (x1) 8.662 9.917 9.123 7.778 6.518 9.133 5.875

(3.866) (4.350) (4.021) (5.555) (5.450) (6.200) (5.301)Control variables Male (female) pop of i (x 1) -0.161 -0.090 -0.229 -0.169 -0.238 -0.205 -0.271

(1.894) (1.257) (3.032) (3.192) (4.142) (4.565) (4.179) Constant (z 1) -12.626 -14.783 -12.701 -6.182 2.965 -3.445 4.660

(2.723) (3.243) (2.715) (2.192) (2.501) (2.674) (2.186)

Test for the exogeneity of the HT instruments 0.175 0.624 0.711 0.842 1.330 1.157 1.549

Females

Table 6

The rate of sex-specific U.S. immigration from Europe, 1870-1889 and 1890-1910:Hausman-Taylor instrumental variable estimates and absolute t-ratios

Variables

Differential econ opportunites Relative per capita GDP, t -1 (x 1) β: 7.211 0.683 18.996 4.605 0.839 11.224 2.655 1.021 6.997 1.492 0.527 3.965

t : (4.058) (0.593) (6.795) (3.770) (1.129) (5.947) (3.888) (1.638) (7.034) (4.601) (1.614) (7.063) Relative grth of GDP, t-1 to t-3 (x1) 6.072 3.797 0.940 5.285 3.175 2.470 6.254 2.182 0.961

(0.653) (0.444) (0.107) (0.912) (0.576) (0.440) (1.745) (0.642) (0.491) Relative pcGDP * Ire/Scan (x 1) 24.463 14.861 9.527 6.257

(7.131) (7.257) (6.198) (7.610) Relative pcGDP * South Europe (x 1) -18.036 -10.832 -5.184 -3.699

(5.293) (4.776) (4.248) (5.535) Pct males (females) in manu (x 1) 20.530 -0.106 15.155 -12.404 -19.879 -14.045 -30.467 -10.687 -9.904 -12.796

(1.802) (0.013) (1.458) (2.586) (2.432) (1.993) (2.873) (4.310) (3.687) (4.218) Pct males (females) in agric (x1) 0.942 3.234 1.332

(0.145) (2.096) (0.723)

Costs of Migrating English spoken in i (z 2) 6.890 6.821 10.159 13.013 7.763 8.666 -2.758 -1.654 -6.229 3.687 5.485 5.604

(0.677) (1.680) (1.043) (0.923) (3.406) (1.019) (0.788) (0.480) (0.947) (3.628) (3.729) (2.788) Total migration prior 2 yrs. (x 2) 16.405 16.770 16.670 12.201 12.971 13.114 14.607 17.424 14.113 5.433 6.956 5.633

(4.029) (4.485) (4.430) (4.737) (5.374) (5.319) (4.847) (5.899) (4.979) (3.604) (4.825) (3.754) Migrant stock (x2) 2.100 -1.243 -2.353 3.468 0.063 -0.296 2.194 0.627 2.368 1.203 0.106 0.962

(0.805) (0.662) (1.023) (2.105) (0.056) (0.196) (1.870) (0.529) (2.019) (2.134) (0.183) (1.607) Birth rate in i (x 1) -0.231 -0.114 -2.108 -0.073

(2.654) (1.332) (2.108) (0.847) Ireland/Scandinavia (z 1) -3.102 -30.733 -10.804 -21.323 2.138 -10.539 0.725 -8.694

(0.378) (5.244) (1.417) (5.835) (0.725) (3.117) (0.817) (5.153)

Southern Europe -6.106 21.064 -4.391 13.832 -4.597 -0.870 -1.722 4.631

(0.783) (2.553) (0.553) (2.207) (1.375) (0.186) (1.906) (2.380) Male(female)EAR (x1) 0.013 0.010 0.010 0.007 0.006 0.002 0.009 0.006 0.004 0.005

(1.316) (1.349) (1.047) (1.773) (2.189) (0.614) (2.848) (5.149) (3.291) (3.345)

Control variables Male (female) pop of i (x 1) -0.746 0.068 -0.298 -1.054 -0.075 -0.430 -0.028 0.099 0.132 -0.142 -0.093 -0.191

(1.675) (0.322) (0.877) (3.416) (0.715) (1.800) (0.224) (0.857) (1.067) (3.178) (1.951) (4.157) Constant (z 1) -6.106 -11.945 -30.121 3.816 -2.758 -10.245 1.314 0.729 -6.376 -0.549 0.141 -2.198

(1.560) (1.136) (2.489) (0.433) (0.484) (1.387) (0.238) (0.145) (1.076) (0.247) (0.097) (1.322)

Test for the exogeneity of the HT instruments 0.918 0.542 0.660 0.449 0.787 1.378 0.775 1.564 1.110 0.739 1.178 1.569

1870-1889

Males Females

1890-1910

Males Females

Table 7The sex composition of U.S. immigration from Europe, 1870-1910:Hausman-Taylor instrumental variable estimates and absolute t-ratios for females

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Differential econ opportunites Relative per capita GDP, t -1 (x 1) β: -2.668 -2.178 -1.710 -4.119 -0.618 -4.630 -6.471 t : (2.230) (1.892) (1.601) (3.545) (0.545) (3.768) (5.195) Relative grth of GDP, t-1 to t-3 (x1) -22.088 -19.085 -18.597 -16.725 -23.086 -18.335 -25.043

(2.892) (2.470) (2.439) (2.257) (2.961) (2.434) (3.230) Relative pcGDP * Ire/Scan (x 1) -4.516

(1.985) Relative (F/M) EAR * GDP growth (x 1) 17.717

(4.047) Relative (F/M) pct manu (x 1) -1.853 -1.697

(2.398) (2.152) Relative (F/M) pct agric (x1) 3.462 4.169 4.040 6.822

(1.739) (2.130) (2.071) (3.397) Relative (F/M) pct service (x1) -0.871 -0.708 -0.701 -0.923

(4.698) (4.229) (4.334) (4.824) Natural pop. increase, t-20 (x1) -0.205 -0.143

(2.879) (1.959)Costs of Migrating English spoken in i (z 2) 12.184 3.968 9.774 8.045 14.067 8.124 4.463

(2.091) (0.692) (1.927) (1.527) (2.321) (1.334) (0.683) Total migration prior 2 yrs. (x 2) -11.060 -7.825 -11.100 -9.864 -13.590 -5.785 -8.293

(2.877) (1.978) (2.779) (2.583) (3.459) (1.780) (2.167) Migrant stock (x2) 4.598 2.707 5.395 5.583 6.274 2.148

(2.861) (1.707) (3.186) (3.392) (4.010) (1.411) Birth rate in i (x 1) -0.557 -0.616 -0.705 -0.717

(4.901) (5.325) (5.605) (5.874) Ireland/Scandinavia (z 1) 7.185 7.890 11.461

(1.472) (1.956) (1.956) Southern Europe -5.495

(1.135) Relative (F/M) EAR (x1) -10.006 -14.374 -16.562 -9.765 -13.957 -14.937 -34.952

(3.179) (4.219) (5.046) (3.154) (4.155) (4.538) (4.597)Control variables Total population of i (x 1) -0.324 -0.019 -0.142 -0.322 -0.255 -0.167 -0.127

(3.489) (0.183) (1.369) (3.534) (2.674) (1.889) (1.244) Constant (z 1) 92.319 61.316 61.100 89.961 69.249 86.678 104.714

(9.740) (6.943) (7.175) (9.728) (7.944) (8.750 (10.167)

Test for the exogeneity of the HT instruments 0.525 0.488 0.147 0.534 0.416 0.419 0.234

Table 8

Variables

Differential econ opportunites Relative per capita GDP, t -1 (x 1) β: 0.377 0.259 1.031 0.181 2.276 0.522 0.270 1.168 t : (3.084) (2.372) (2.812) (0.521) (3.669) (2.070) (1.112) (2.923) Relative growth of GDP, t-1 to t-3 1.694 1.720 5.347 7.017 5.711 1.589 2.074 1.733

(2.160) (2.193) (1.760) (2.303) (1.872) (0.821) (1.068) (0.898) Relative pcGDP * Ire/Scan (x 1) 3.687 1.205

(4.059) (1.935) Relative pcGDP * South Europe (x 1) -1.663 -1.039

(2.167) (2.037)

Pct labor force in manu (x 1)a -0.257 0.138 -2.214 -3.038 -4.755 -6.128 -7.229 -7.466

(0.326) (0.174) (0.714) (1.156) (1.448) (3.687) (3.967) (4.338)

Pct labor force in agric (x1)a 0.074

(0.168)

Costs of Migrating English spoken in i (z 2) 0.692 0.544 0.335 -0.188 -0.136 3.158 3.252 3.907

(1.972) (1.139) (0.258) (0.173) (0.072) (3.343) (3.539) (3.367) Total migration prior 2 yrs. (x 2) 5.671 5.323 11.737 12.852 11.546 4.538 5.016 4.829

(17.074) (13.060) (7.616) (8.765) (7.524) (4.733) (5.259) (5.116) Migrant stock (x2) 0.177 1.700 1.320 2.004 1.503 1.334 1.540

(1.063) (2.712) (2.355) (7.524) (3.781) (3.440) (4.133) Birth rate in i (x 1) 0.002 0.001

(0.176) (0.049) Ireland/Scandinavia (z 1) 0.202 0.400 3.002 -1.919 -0.126 -1.818

(0.561) (0.967) (2.343) (1.121) (0.134) (1.307) Southern Europe (z1) -0.611 -1.190 -0.070 -0.361 1.707

(1.678) (0.910) (0.035) (0.429) (1.321) Male (female) EAR (x1) 6.635 7.967 7.112 3.755 4.059 3.871

(3.900) (4.630) (4.100) (4.608) (4.800) (5.015) Relative (F/M) EAR (x1) 0.528

(1.573)

Control variables Total, male, or female pop of i (x 1) -0.018 -0.023 -0.115 -0.062 -0.169 -0.172 -0.149 -0.181

(2.648) (2.346) (1.774) (1.138) (2.634) (3.899) (3.593) (4.783) Constant (z 1) -1.873 -1.730 -9.753 -11.558 -9.783 -0.667 -0.874 -1.573

(1.897) (1.660) (2.770) (3.360) (2.735) (0.308) (0.409) (0.739)

Test for the exogeneity of the HT instruments 1.534 0.811 0.240 0.800 0.762 0.659 0.925 0.930aMale and female regressions use sex-specific variables.

Males Females

The rate of U.S. immigration from Europe of intact families and all others, 1870-1910:Hausman-Taylor instrumental variable estimates and absolute t-ratios

Intact families All others

Table 9

Variables

Differential econ opportunites Relative per capita GDP, t -1 (x 1) β: 0.202 0.363 0.237 0.462 0.470 0.095 0.095 1.022 0.238 2.108 0.530 0.013 t : (3.020) (3.569) (3.393) (6.072) (6.147) (4.820) (4.812) (2.461) (0.589) (3.108) (1.844) (0.050) Relative growth of GDP, t-1 to t-3 (x1) 0.756 0.817 0.718 0.897 0.896 0.175 0.174 5.192 7.159 6.010 2.142 3.305

(1.707) (1.842) ((1.622) (1.525) (1.522) (1.217) (1.212) (1.565) (2.108) (1.805) (0.991) (1.494) Relative pcGDP * Ire/Scan (x 1) 2.511 0.311

(2.545) (0.472) Relative pcGDP * South Europe (x 1) -0.239 -1.765

(1.978) (2.152)

Pct labor force in manu (x 1)a 0.978 -2.617 -2.654 -0.467 -0.478 -2.517 -6.091 -3.266

(1.333) (3.873) (3.912) (3.662) (3.800) (0.765) (3.244) (1.836)

Pct labor force in agric (x1)a 0.040 1.384 1.428 0.257 0.260 1.804 -0.771 0.477

(0.107) (3.175) (3.230) (4.269) (4.314) (0.797) (0.398) (0.610) Pct labor force in services (x1) 0.571 0.550 0.358

(1.234) (1.827) (1.268)

Costs of Migrating English spoken in i (z 2) 0.634 0.478 0.696 -1.318 -1.230 -0.106 -0.005 2.584 -0.436 0.355 3.606 3.043

(1.433) (0.924) (1.239) (1.422) (1.328) (0.576) (0.022) (1.276) (0.301) (0.301) (2.964) (2.893) Total migration prior 2 yrs. (x 2) 2.197 2.190 2.080 5.322 5.320 1.302 1.302 10.175 10.870 10.486 5.653 5.879

(9.329) (9.611) (9.018) (16.365) (16.541) (17.055) (17.275) (6.094) (6.497) (6.479) (5.205) (5.323) Migrant stock (x2) -0.043 0.015 0.046 0.843 0.838 0.182 0.183 1.192 1.214 1.476 1.318 0.925

(0.444) (0.163) ((0.494) (6.296) (6.389) (5.837) (6.004) (1.927) (1.837) (2.382) (2.921) (2.132) Ireland/Scandinavia (z 1) -0.461 0.194 0.013 3.545 0.527 2.923 -0.398 0.917

(1.148) (0.284) (0.085) (2.197) (0.270) (2.476) (0.335) (0.664) Southern Europe (z1) 0.005 -0.584 -0.467 0.052 -1.485 1.544 -0.766

(0.012) (1.387) (0.617) (0.316) (0.840) (0.923) (0.701) Male(female) EAR (x1) -0.428 -0.415 -0.064 -0.064 7.868 7.264 4.071

(1.254) (1.217) (0.954) (0.960) (4.176) (3.951) (4.440) Relative (F/M) EAR (x1) 0.382 0.424 0.553

(1.817) (2.236) (2.883)

Control variables Total, male, or female pop of i (x 1) -0.025 -0.027 -0.030 0.038 0.039 0.004 0.004 -0.080 -0.092 -0.141 -0.205 -0.132

(4.043) (4.598) (4.605) (2.089) (2.187) (0.848) (0.910) (0.997) (1.301) (2.180) (3.904) (2.909) Constant (z 1) -0.957 -0.915 -0.486 -2.031 -1.899 -0.398 -0.421 -11.968 -6.196 -12.130 -0.738 -1.890

(1.641) (1.721) (0.895) (2.434) (2.327) (2.189) (2.356) (3.040) (1.600) (3.220) (0.300) (0.774)

Test for the exogeneity of the HT instruments 1.124 1.205 0.412 0.443 0.394 0.326 0.285 0.184 0.968 0.428 1.011 1.009aMale and female regressions use sex-specific variables.

Females

The rate of U.S. immigration from Europe of intact families and all others, 1870-1910:Hausman-Taylor instrumental variable estimates and absolute t-ratios

Intact families Single personsOther family membersMales Females Males

Summary and Conclusions1. Historically, both males and females responded to economic

incentives. However, males responded more strongly in the sense that sex composition for low-income countries was oriented relatively more toward males, other factors held constant.

2. The importance of the size of the labor-force-entry cohorts on subsequent international migration found in earlier historical studies is due to males.

3. Males were more likely than females to follow recent migrants, but females were more likely to move in response to larger stocks of migrants from their home countries, perhaps reflecting the importance of marriage markets for females.

4. High source-country birth rates discouraged female migration more that male migration and apparently discouraged family migration.

5. Distance from the U.S. was never much of a factor in migration to the U.S.

6. Females were more likely to originate in Ireland or England.7. Females relative to males were more likely to come from

countries with relatively much agricultural orientation. 8. Service-sector jobs in source countries discouraged

females relative to males from migrating 9. Both male and female migrants from Latin Europe were less

responsive to economic incentives than those from the rest of Europe—a finding unlike the earlier finding of Hatton and Williamson.

10. However, after about 1890, young, unmarried males and

females from Ireland and Scandinavia responded strongly to economic incentives. Indeed, they responded more strongly than males and females from elsewhere in Europe. During the period of the “new immigration,” much of the European response to economic incentives appears to have been due to the Irish and Scandinavians.

11. Single, unattached males were more responsive to economic incentives than males who moved as part of a family migration strategy, and those who moved as part of a family strategy were in turn more responsive than those who moved in an intact family.

In general, this study demonstrates that both males and females were responsive to labor-market signals, but that males were more responsive. The missing link is relative wages of females compared to males. The only source of such data is found in the reports of the Dillingham Commission.

TABLE 12AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS IN THE U.S. OF MALE AND FEMALE EMPLOYEES

18 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH, EARLY 1900S

Country

Males Females Immigrelative

earningsNo.

ReportingWk.

earningsImm/

NativeNo.

ReportingWk.

earningsImm/

Native

Denmark 377 $14.32 1.00 52 $8.42 1.06 1.70

Ireland 7,596 13.01 0.91 3,609 8.24 1.04 1.58

Great Britaina 12,368 15.08 1.05 3,848 8.82 1.12 1.71

Sweden 3,984 15.36 1.07 128 8.86 1.12 1.73

Germany 11,380 13.63 0.95 1,184 8.98 1.14 1.52

France 896 12.92 0.90 345 9.89 1.25 1.31

Belgium 125 11.07 0.77 36 9.42 1.19 1.18

Netherlands 1,026 12.04 0.84 142 7.89 1.00 1.53

Norway 420 15.28 1.06 39 9.27 1.17 1.65

Italyb 13,164 10.29 0.72 3,655 6.95 0.88 1.48

Spain 21 9.87 0.69 3 — — —

Portugal 3,125 8.10 0.56 2,057 7.31 0.92 1.11

Source: Reports of the Immigration Commission (1911), Tables 22 and 23. a. Weighted average of England, Scotland, and Wales. b. Weighted average of Northern Italy and Southern Italy.

Variable 1 2 3

Differential econ opportunites Relative per capita GDP, t -1 (x 1) β: -0.473 -2.606 -1.698

t : (0.186) (0.619) (0.727)

Relative pcGDP * Ire/Scan (x 1) -6.606

(1.124)

Relative pcGDP * South Europe (x 1) 2.823

(0.577)

Relative (F/M) pct manu (x 1) -1.552 -0.097 -1.493

(0.672) (0.041) (0.675)

Relative (F/M) pct agric (x1) 6.820 4.568 4.695

(1.719) (1.235) (1.308)

Rate of natural increase, t-20 (x1) 0.043

(0.492)

Relative (F/M) pct service (x1) 0.307

(0.609)

Costs of Migrating English spoken in i (z 2) 9.943 5.076 7.606

(1.165) (0.668) (0.815)

Total migration prior 2 yrs. (x 2) 9.775 9.557 90968

(1.756) (1.727) (1.800)

Migrant stock (x2) 5.490 5.018 4.277

(1.691) (1.883) (1.612)

Birth rate in i (x 1) -0.310 -0.288 -0.312

(1.677) (1.563) (1.638)

Ireland/Scandinavia (z 1) 8.626

(0.836)

Southern Europe -9.761(1.039)

Control variables Population of i (x 1) -0.355 -0.259 -0.260

(1.475) (1.797) (1.587)

Constant (z 1) 44.444 46.806 45.559

(4.429) (4.926) (5.234)

Test for the exogeneity of the HT instruments 1.227 0.824 0.948

Table 7The sex composition of U.S. immigration from Europe, 1870-1889:Hausman-Taylor instrumental variable estimates and absolute t-ratios for females

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

Differential econ opportunites Relative per capita GDP, t -1 (x 1) β: -4.090 -5.360 -6.097 -5.913 8.698

t : (2.106) (3.003) (3.166) (3.134) (2.757)

Relative pcGDP * Ire/Scan (x 1) -2.438

(0.597)

Relative pcGDP * South Europe (x 1) 3.363

(0.964)

Relative (F/M) pct manu (x 1) -6.286 -6.517 -6.658

(2.656) (2.771) (2.813)

Relative (F/M) pct agric (x1) 13.837 -0.418 -1.314 -0.868

(2.983) (0.066) (0.206) (0.140)

Rate of natural increase, t-20 (x1)

Relative (F/M) pct service (x1) -1.361 -2.067 -2.088 -2.160

(2.796) (2.536) (2.561) (2.661)

Costs of Migrating English spoken in i (z 2) 6.075 16.800 18.058 15.954 17.718

(0.591) (1.443) (1.509) (1.323) (1.375)

Total migration prior 2 yrs. (x 2) -10.836 -8.514

(1.393) (1.095)

Migrant stock (x2) 5.535 4.020 -0.575 -0.847 -0.871

(1.752) (1.250) (0.265) (0.386) (0.398)

Birth rate in i (x 1) -0.314 -0.445 -0.530 -0.561 -0.657

(1.416) (1.856) (2.191) (2.293) (2.481)

Ireland/Scandinavia (z 1) 4.953 -1.362 -1.819 2.015

(0.653) (0.143) (0.176) (0.173)

Southern Europe -0.615 1.752 0.709 -3.715(0.082) (0.185) (0.066) (0.306)

Relative (F/M) EAR (x1) -7.649 -5.733

(1.148) (0.899)

Control variables Population of i (x 1) -0.279 -0.517 -0.484 -0.488 -0.504

(1.866) (2.704) (2.523) (2.527) (2.845)

Constant (z 1) 64.336 58.624 85.287 87.741 93.496

(6.273) (5.092) (5.499) (5.638) (5.626)

Test for the exogeneity of the HT instruments 0.961 1.670 1.332 1.245 1.363

Table 8The sex composition of U.S. immigration from Europe, 1890-1910:Hausman-Taylor instrumental variable estimates and absolute t-ratios for females