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

Abstract

A longitudinal approach is used to describe and explain processes of social inclusion and exclusion among different groups of migrants in Antwerp and Stockholm (1846–1926), in terms of access to marriage and reproduction. In this way we want to get a better idea about the factors which facilitated or hampered the social inclusion of migrants upon arrival in two different Western European port cities. The results of the discrete time event history analyses show that social inclusion of migrants was easier in Antwerp and became easier over time, while in Stockholm it was more difficult and became even more complicated over time. This finding might be interpreted as the result of greater societal openness in Antwerp, as the Belgian port-city's economic success depended largely upon foreigners and international trade. Higher odds for social inclusion in Antwerp might also have been related to differences in the chances of finding an urban niche, which in turn might have been a result of disparities in economic and demographic growth. Most likely it was a combination of differences in the local opportunity structure and the level of societal openness. Furthermore, it was found that region and place of birth, age at arrival, historical time period, and, in the case of Stockholm, gender and social class had an important impact on the chances of successful inclusion.

Keywords::

• migration
• social inclusion
• social exclusion
• family formation
• marriage
• reproduction
• urban growth
• port cities

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), KU Leuven (Belgium), Umeå University (Sweden), The Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities (Kungl. Vitterhetsakademien) and NCCR Lives (Switzerland) for their research grants, which made this research possible. We are also grateful to the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock (Germany) as they financed and facilitated the Urban Demography Network meetings, which led to the publication of this special issue. Moreover, we are indebted to the research network Historical Demography (FWO). Next, we want to thank Erik Vanhoute and Sven Vrielinck (UGent) for providing us with population figures from the LOKSTAT database. Last but not least, we would like to thank Jan Kok (Radboud University Nijmegen & KU Leuven) and Leo Lucassen (Leiden University) and Mikolaj Szoltysek (Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock) and Arne Solli (University of Bergen) for their useful comments and suggestions.

Notes

^1. Participation in political and cultural activities, as well as access to (public) education, health care and the social security system, are often also included in definitions on social inclusion and exclusion (Odmivar & Richmond, 2003; Sen, 2000), but since this is outside the scope of this article, we have narrowed our definition.

^2. Alba and Nee (2003) underline that assimilation (in the way they use the concept) does not only change the cultural practices, attitudes and behavior of the immigrant group. Immigration also transforms the host society and that is also an outcome of the assimilation process.

^3. Another type of restriction on marriage was directed towards partners who shared blood ties. Incest was one of the sins which had to be avoided in order to avoid disgrace within the community.

^7. Including suburbs of Berchem, Borgerhout, Deurne, Hoboken, Merksem and Wilrijk.

^4. The diamond industry, which was dominated by the Jewish community, is an important exception.

^5. Gothenburg was and stayed Sweden's main port city.

^6.http://www.ehps-net.eu/