Migrants and locals: their influence on the Argentinean fertility - - PDF document

1 Migrants and locals: their influence on the Argentinean fertility transition1 Edith Alejandra Pantelides- Centro de Estudios de Población- CENEP eap@cenep.org.ar Presenting author: Edith Alejandra Pantelides Language: English Introduction The starting point of the Argentinean fertility transition is difficult to establish due to the paucity of statistical information and the uneven quality of the available data. We do know that by the second part of the XIX century there were still no traces of it and that by the end of the 1940s it was well under way. During that same time span Argentine received large numbers of immigrants, mostly from Europe. This paper is based on research that attempts to give some clues about the possible relationship between immigration and the fertility transition in Argentina by examining information from censuses and vital statistics. It also proposes an approximate starting point for the transition, and discusses some theoretical explanations about the transition to see how they fit the Argentinian case. Fertility – as measured by the crude birth rate (CBR) - declined in Argentina earlier than in all other Latin American countries except Uruguay. Unlike what is proposed by the demographic transition theory (Notestein 1945) this decline did not lead to a period of high natural growth because there was a parallel decline in mortality (as measured by the crude death rate - CDR) (Lattes 1975). According to several authors (Collver 1965, Lattes 1975, Rothman 1973, Torrado 1970) the CBR started a slow decline sometime between 1880 and 1890. The first question we attempt to answer is: was this the start of the fertility transition? In other words, was the decline of the CBR a sign that fertility was declining? The second question we will try to answer is: what, if any, influence had the large European immigration received by Argentina starting in the late 1800s, on the decline of fertility as several authors have proposed (Cutright et al. 1976, Elizaga 1973, Rothman 1973, Torrado, 1970). To answer this second question the analysis does not cover the whole country because vital statistics were not available at the national level in the earlier periods studied

• here. Five jurisdictions were selected: 4 provinces (Buenos Aires, Mendoza, Santa Fe, and

Tucumán) and the city of Buenos Aires, here called “Federal Capital” or “Capital” to avoid confusion). The analysis starts in 1869 (first national census) and ends in 1947 (the fourth national census). The areas were selected to represent different development stages and diverse impacts of the foreign-born population (Table I, Appendix).

1 This paper is mostly based on the author’s dissertation, The Decline of Fertility in Argentina, 1869-

• 1947. Presented to the University of Texas at Austin, USA, 1984. A shorter Spanish version in Pantelides

1995.

2 Methodology and sources of data The sources of data for the study were censuses and vital statistics. The national censuses of 1869, 1895, 1914, and 1947, were the main source. The quality of the three first national censuses was evaluated by Lattes (1968) who estimated a 3.3 to 3.8 percent of under- enumeration for the native-born and 2.4 to 6.3 percent for the foreign-born. The 1947 census was considered of good quality by Camisa (1964), Lattes (1968), and Somoza (1968). However, the evaluations do not extend to the enumeration of sub-populations.2 The civil registration system in which the vital statistics are based covered different provinces at different times, starting in the mid to late 1880s. By 1914 all provinces have adopted civil registration but full coverage was not reached until later. For some provinces scattered ecclesiastical sources are available for earlier dates. Birth statistics were evaluated and corrected by Recchini de Lattes (1967, 1969), Recchini de Lattes and Lattes (1969), and by Pantelides (1995). In this paper the corrected births by Recchini de Lattes are used. The measures calculated were those that the sources allowed. Thus, the picture is not complete in all the dimensions all the time. Sometimes there are only beats and pieces of information that provide probable scenarios. To see the influence of immigrants in the country’s fertility resenting requires that the fertility of locals (more precisely, natives) and immigrants is measured and compared. This poses methodlogical problems. The first one is the definition of “foreign-born fertility” versus “native fertility”. Given that fertility is the product of a union of two persons, the problem arises when the persons in question are one native and the other foreign-born. Some studies Baily, 1980; Szuchman, 1977) show that in Argentina there was a high degree of endogamy in the national groups and that in the case of mixed marriages between a foreigner and a native, and given the high masculinity index among the former, the most frequent combination was between an immigrant male and a native female. Knowing this does not solve the methodological problem since in practice the data forces us to define the “nationality of fertility” by the nationality of the mother. Context During the period when the CBR declined,3, the Argentinian economy was expanding thanks to the export of agricultural and animal husbandry products, some industrialization and growth of the services sector, accompanied by a process of urbanization. Population residing in localities of 10,000 and more inhabitants almost doubled between 1869 and 1914 and surpassed 50% by 1947 (Table 1). At the same time the educational level of the population was increasing: illiteracy fell from 77.4% in 1869 to 53.3% in 1895 and 35.9% in 1914. The decrease in illiteracy was somewhat faster among women, although starting from a higher level4 (Table 1).

2 For more details see the authors cited and Pantelides (1995). 3 As shown in table 1 other fertility measures declined later than the CBR. This discrepancy will be

discussed later in this paper.

4 Sources: Argentina, Dirección Nacional de Estadística y Censos (1956), Recchini de Lattes (1975).

3 Table 1. Argentina. Context of the CBR’s decline. Census dates 1869 to 1947

Year CBR % foreign born % population in localities 10,000 and more Female population % illiterate (ages 14 and

• ver)

% economically active (ages 10 and over) 1869 49.1 12.1 22.2 82.2 58.8 1895 44.0 25.4 27.2 59.0 41.9 1914 39.2 30.3 40.0 40.7 27.4 1947 26.3 15.3 52.7 15.2 26.0

Notes: CBRs are for the years 1870-1874, 1890-1894, 1910-1914, and 1944-1949. Sources: CBR: Lattes 1975. All other: Argentina, Dirección Nacional de Estadística y Censos 1956. Immigrants (mostly Europeans) were 12% of the population when the first national census was taken in 1869. Their weight doubled by the second census in 1895 and reached its peak in 1914 (the third census) (Table 1). The impact of this large foreign born population cannot be underestimated: 58% of the country’s growth between 1840 and 1940 was due directly or indirectly to immigration, compared with 41% in the United States5. Of that 58% half was the direct contribution of the foreign born population and the other half was the contribution of the immigrant’s natural increase (Mortara 1947). Recchini de Lattes (1969) calculated that, in the absence of international migration after 1870, the population of Argentina would have been 27% smaller in the 1895 census, 46% smaller in the 1914 census and 52% smaller in the 1947 census. Fertility decline: when Establishing when the fertility decline started in Argentina is a task hindered by the paucity of data and by their poor quality, as explained earlier. Another aspect to be considered is the heterogeneity of the populations that were and are part of the territory called “Argentina”. Thus fertility decline may have started at different times in different areas, as in fact it did. Our hypothesis is that at the national level the decline of the CBR between the two first national censuses that several authors (Collver, 1965; Lattes, 1975; Rothman, 1973; Torrado 1970) estimate was the start of the transition is due to factors other than a decline in fertility and, given the theme of this paper, we will examine if immigration could be one such factor. In Table 2 besides the CBR, the total fertility rate (TFR) and the mean and median number of children ever born are shown for the whole country. Only the CBR shows a continuous decline that starts somewhere between 1869 and 1895. The mean and median

5 The United States was the destination of a much larger number of immigrants than Argentina but they

were a smaller proportion in relation to the size of the receiving population.

4 number of children ever born show no decline previous to 1914. According to the TFR the decline started between 1895 and 1914, even when using different estimates6. Table 2. Argentina. Fertility measures. Census dates 1869 to 1947

Year CBR TFR Mean number of children ever born Median number of children ever born Alternative estimates of the TFR Alternative estimates of the TFR 1869 49.1 6.8 5.1 1895 44.0 7.0 6.0 4.7* 3.4* 1914 39.2 5.3

• 4.6*

3.4* 1947 26.3 3.2 3.1 3.4** 2.0**

Notes: CBR calculated by Lattes (1975) for the years 1870-1874, 1890-1894, 1910- 1914; 1944-1949. * All married and widowed women; includes stillbirths. ** Married and widowed women 14 years old and older. No specification about stillbirths. Sources: Torrado (1970); Arretx et al. (1977); Rothman (1973); Camisa (1965); Pantelides (1982). A view at the parity structure from which the mean and median number of children ever born were calculated also gives support to the idea that very little happened in terms of fertility decline before 1914 (Table 3). The proportion of nulliparous women grows somewhat at the same time that there is no or very little change in the lower parities and a small growth in the highest parities. By contrast, in 1947 the parity structure shows clear signs of growth in the 0 and low parities and a significant decrease in the highest parities, a structure typical of a population that is controlling fertility. Table 3. Argentina. Distribution of women by parity. Census dates 1895 to 1947

Year

Parity Total 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9 +

1895

9.7 24.1 22.2 17.4 12.4 14.2 100.0

1914

10.6 24.6 20.8 16.2 12.1 15.7 100.0

1947

13.1 37.9 21.4 11.3 7.4 8.9 100.0 Notes: In 1895 and 1914: all married and widowed women; includes stillbirths. In 1947: married and widowed women 14 years old and older. No specification about stillbirths. The open interval was given a mean value of 13 in 1895, 12 in 1914 and 11 in 1947, assuming a diminishing trend of the highest parities. Source: Pantelides (1982).

6 Estimates are from different authors, and we selected those where the calculation methodology was

more clearly explained.

5 Summarizing, the fertility transition was under way by 1947 but did not start before 1895, and probably began closer to 1914. If the breaking limit is when the CBR falls irreversible below 30 per thousand (Lesthaeghe, 1977), in Argentina that happened after 1914 and before

• 1947. The absence of inter- census data makes it impossible to determine more exactly if the

decline started nearer the first or the second date. But why does the CBR signal otherwise? Leaving aside that the vital statistics data had partial coverage before 1914 and were of dubious quality7 even after that date, another factor is immigration: immigrants “entered” the denominator of the CBR in large numbers, with peak values between 1885 and 1889 and between 1904 and 1913 among the dates of interest here (Recchini de Lattes and Lattes, 1969). It is improbable that they had children as soon as they arrived to the country because starting a couple (or joining their spouses who came earlier), and then starting reproduction, takes time. Moreover the male dominance among immigrants (see below) makes the CBR, which includes males in the denominator, even less adequate. The general fertility rate (GFR) (Table 4) is a better measure in that it does not include men in the denominator but only women in childbearing ages, but the problem still remains of the inclusion of large numbers of immigrant women that probably did not contribute to the numerator of the rate in proportions similar to their contribution to the denominator for the reasons explain earlier. Fertility decline: where The fertility decline did not start and develop homogenously in the country (Table 4). For reasons that may have to do with its urban condition or the educational level of its inhabitants, the Federal Capital starts the period we are studying with fertility levels lower than all the other jurisdictions except Mendoza8. But unlike Mendoza, where fertility goes up afterwards (suggesting a problem with the data) fertility levels of the Capital peak in 1869 and go down consistently at every date. The year 1869 signals also the peak of fertility (measured in different ways) for the remaining three provinces. Most indices show that the provinces of Buenos Aires, Santa Fe and Tucumán have a somewhat lower fertility in 1895 than in 1869, but a more noticeable change appears in 1914. However, the behavior of the Capital is radically different in the large decrease in fertility levels between 1895 and 1914. It is interesting that the only measure that pertains only to married women – the mean number of children ever born- shows almost no change between 1895 and 1914, but an important decrease by 1947. In these indices only legally married natives and foreign-born are included, thus eliminating the influence of the unmarried immigrants that do not contribute to

7 The TFR of the earlier dates were calculated using methods based on census data like the

• wn children method and the Bogue and Palmore (1964) regression method, thus avoiding the

use of vital statistics.

8 We do not have an explanation for the Mendoza indices except perhaps the poor quality of

the data.

6

• fertility. At the same time unmarried natives are not included which leaves part of fertility
• ut9.

Table 4. Argentina: five jurisdictions. Fertility measures. Census dates 1869 to 1947 Jurisdictions 1869 1895 1914 1947 CBR Federal Capital 46.0 42.5 27.5 14.8 Buenos Aires 57.6 49.7 40.8 21.0 Santa Fe 58.2 49.7 41.1 22.0 Mendoza 47.7 49.9 48.6 31.0 Tucumán 62.6 53.3 49.1 41.2 GFR Federal Capital 187.1 166.9 104.3 47.0 Buenos Aires 275.3 275.0 189.6 78.5 Santa Fe 259.8 233.0 194.4 82.1 Mendoza 186.1 197.7 209.5 119.3 Tucumán 252.3 216.6 205.4 169.2 Mean number of children ever born to ever married women* Federal Capital 4.2 4.1 2.4 Buenos Aires 5.1 4.9 3.1 Santa Fe 5.0 3.4 Mendoza 5.0 4.1 Tucumán 5.1 4.8 If Federal Capital 0.48 0.42 0.26 0.13 Buenos Aires 0.65 0.58 0.48 0.21 Santa Fe 0.65 0.59 0.49 0.22 Mendoza 0.47 0.51 0.53 0.31 Tucumán 0.64 0.59 0.50 0.45 Notes: * Standardized by the ever married women of the Federal Capital in 1936. Sources: Pantelides (1995) with data from national censuses; CBR and GFR calculated with births corrected by Recchini de Lattes (1967), Coale 1967. Summarizing: The fertility transition began earlier and progressed more rapidly in the Federal Capital, starting from an already lower level than the other jurisdictions. By 1895 there are some indications of a lowering of fertility levels in some provinces.By 1914 all jurisdictions (except Mendoza, with erratic numbers) show some more decrease in fertility levels but none as noticeable as in the Federal Capital. Thus we can carefully conclude that the fertility transition in Argentina, if defined as a definitive change from past trends that is irreversible (Knodel, 1974) and when the CBR falls below 30 per thousand (Lesthaeghe, 1977) happened in the Federal Capital close to 1914, in

9 Consensual unions and single mothers were far more common among the native women.

7 the provinces of Buenos Aires and Santa Fe after 1914 and before 1947, and in the provinces

• f Mendoza and Tucumán, after 1947.

The immigrants’ influence on fertility Immigrants could have influenced fertility levels in Argentina different ways: a) By modifying the age, sex, and marital status composition of the population thus altering the marriage market. b) If immigrants were from countries where fertility was lower than in Argentina and they have continued reproducing at those levels (assuming that their numbers were large enough to make a difference, which was in fact the case in certain areas of Argentina). c) By dissemination of their fertility norms among the receiving population. This issue cannot be researched with the available data, but we can propose some ideas. Let us examine these three aspects a) Immigrant’s impact in the age/sex composition As stated earlier, immigration (mostly European) arriving to Argentina between the end of the XIX century and the middle of the XX century had a large impact on the size of the population due to their number10 and the small size of the receiving population. This happened in different degrees in the different jurisdictions of Argentina. As an example in the Federal Capital 78 % of the male population and 45% of the female population ages 15 to 64 in the year 1869 was foreign born. Compare with 0.9 and 0.1 respectively in Tucumán province. The impact was larger in the young adult ages and among the male population, where the immigrants concentrated. While the masculinity index of natives was always close to 100 between 1869 and 1947, the one for the foreign born was 250 in 1869, 175 in 1895, 171 in 1914, and still 138 in 1947 (Recchini de Lattes and Lattes 1969). This uneven sex composition

• f the immigrants led to an increase in the sex ratio from 1.05 men for every woman in 1869,

to 1.17 in 1895 and 1.24 in 1914, and down to 1.06 in 1947 when immigration had lost

• importance11. During the same period around 85% of the foreign born population was in the

age group 15-64 (Schkolnik and Pantelides, 1975) This age/sex composition of immigration results in a marriage market that is “positive for women” in the sense that there is an excess of men for every woman, especially in the reproductive ages, which makes it possible for a high proportion of women to enter into unions and to do it a young ages. Regarding fertility, this marriage market should be positive for an increase in fertility levels depending also on other factors, such as the level of fertility control. b) Immigrants’ fertility in the country of origin

10 For example, the net balance of foreign- born was 3195400 between 1869 and 1914 for a total

receiving population of 1897000 in 1869 (Recchini de Lattes and Lattes, 1969).

11 Calculated with data from Recchini de Lattes and Lattes (1969).

8 Immigrants to Argentina came mainly from Italy and Spain (Table 5). There were contributions from other countries (France, Great Britain, Switzerland, Russia, Germany, the Ottoman Empire, Chile, Bolivia and Uruguay) that were locally important at different times during the analyzed period. Regarding the jurisdictions focused in this paper, Italians were the largest group in the Capital, the province of Buenos Aires and Santa Fe during all the period under study, and in Mendoza by 1895. Spaniards were the predominant immigrant group in Tucumán in 1895 and in Mendoza and Tucumán by 1914, and almost equaled Italians in the Capital and Buenos Aires by 1914 (Table 5). The dominance of Italians and Spaniards was only challenged by immigrants from neighboring countries in provinces with small proportions of foreign-born. It is interesting to note the different national composition of the other nationalities, depending on the jurisdiction and the year, like the presence of French in 1869 in the Capital, Buenos Aires, and Tucumán; Chileans in Mendoza in the two first dates and Ottomans in Tucumán in 1914. Table 5. Five Argentinian jurisdictions. Country of origin of immigrants. First three national censuses: 1869 – 1896- 1914 Jurisdiction and year Immigrants' country of origin Italy Spain Other Other All other Total 1869 Federal Capital 47.6 15.9 15.2f 6.8 14.5 100.0 Buenos Aires 29.7 23.0 21.8f 9.5Br 16.0 100.0 Santa Fe 30.3 11.2 16.3s 12.4f 29.8 100.0 Mendoza 1.2 1.2 94.0c 1.3 2.3 100.0 Tucumán 12.0 11.1 20.8f 20.8b 35.3 100.0 1895 Federal Capital 52.6 23.3 9.6f 5.5 9.1 100.0 Buenos Aires 49.3 24.6 12.4f 4.0 9.6 100.0 Santa Fe 65.9 12.7 6.2 3.4 11.9 100.0 Mendoza 26.1 17.3 32.8c 15.5f 8.3 100.0 Tucumán 31.1 37.6 12.8f 2.4 16.1 100.0 1914 Federal Capital 40.2 39.4 3.7 3.7 13.0 100.0 Buenos Aires 40.5 38.9 4.3 3.3 13.0 100.0 Santa Fe 52.1 26.8 3.5 3.2 14.4 100.0 Mendoza 32.4 47.0 6.3 3.1 11.2 100.0 Tucumán 24.1 48.1 12.7o 2.5 12.6 100.0 Notes: Information not available for 1947. Br=British, c= Chileans, f= French, o= Ottomans, s= Swiss. Sources: Pantelides, 1995. Elaborated from the national censuses of 1869, 1895, 1914.

9 Now we have to ascertain if immigrants were from countries where fertility was lower than in Argentina and thus could have influenced the Argentinian fertility, either by continuing to reproduce at that lower level (being as they were a large proportion of the total population in some areas) or by dissemination of their norms among the locals. Table 6. Five Argentinian jurisdictions, Italy and France. Index of overall fertility (If). Census dates 1869-1895 Jurisdiction

If

1869 1895 1914 1947 Federal Capital 0.48 0.42 0.26 0.13 Buenos Aires 0.65 0.58 0.48 0.21 Santa Fe 0.65 0.69 0.49 0.22 Mendoza 0.47 0.51 0.53 0.31 Tucumán 0.64 0.59 0.50 0.45 Italy *0.39 **0.37 ***0.35 ****0.19 France ^0.28 ^^0.23 Notes: * 1870-72, ** 1900-1902, *** 1910-12, ****1950-52, ^c. 1870, ^^ c.1900 Sources: Coale (1967), Recchini de Lattes (1967), Recchini de Lattes and Lattes (1969), Livi-Bacci (1977), Van de Walle 1974. Births corrected by Pantelides (1995). The fertility of Italy, as measured by If was always lower than that of any of the jurisdictions, except perhaps the Federal Capital towards the end of the period being studied (Table 6). Immigrants from Italy were predominantly from the North, more developed regions, during the 19th century, while the South gained importance during the 20th century. On the whole, Italian migration to Argentina is northern as compared to Italian migration to the United States (Klein,1981). The origin is important because in the North-West and Center of Italy fertility declined earlier than in the other areas (Santini, 1974). Before the 1910s Italian immigrants, regardless of origin, were from areas with significantly lower fertility than any Argentinian jurisdiction. But between the 1910s and 1920s, the Federal Capital reached fertility levels lower than those of Italy (Table 6). Around the end of the XIX century, when the TFR rate of Argentina was estimated at around 6 or 712 the level in Spain was 4; around the date of the third census in Argentina the TFR was 5.3 and that of Spain was 2.9 (Nicolau, 2005). The information available locates the main origins of transoceanic migration in Galicia, the Asturias and the Canaries Islands ( Martínez Cachero, 1970; Puyol Antolín, 1979).

12 The values vary according to different authors. TFR of 6 was estimated by Somoza (1967) while the

value of 7 is from Arretx, Mellafe and Somoza (1977).

10 Table 7. Selected Argentinian jurisdictions and regions of Spain. Crude birth rates. Census dates 1860 - 1910 Year Argentina Spain Federal Capital Buenos Aires Galicia Asturias Canaries 1860

• 33.2

38.2 43.9 1869 46.0 52.8 --

• 1887

49.7

a51.1

32.4 35.1 41.6 1900 39.6 42.0 34.1 38.5 48.3 1910

b33.2

40.6 30.8 33.0 42.6 Notes: a 1885; b 1909. Sources: Elaborated by Pantelides from national and municipal censuses and vital statistics, and Livi-Bacci (1968). Even considering the problems the CBR poses for comparisons, table 7 confirms that the fertility of the main areas of origin within Spain was lower than that of the receiving population in the first years of the great migration to Argentina. But comparison with the Federal Capital, that had the lowest fertility in the country, show that by the 1910s, fertility levels in the Capital were probably converging with those of Galicia and Asturias, and were lower than in the Canaries. The three Spanish regions however, show CBRs still above the ones

• f Buenos Aires (the jurisdiction with the second lowest fertility of Argentina, after the

Capital). Summarizing, up to the 1910s the main migratory currents arriving to Argentina- Italians and Spaniards- originated in areas with lower fertility levels that their areas of

• destination. The same can be said of a secondary migratory current originated in France.

However, given the selectivity of migration, it is impossible to affirm that the immigration to Argentina was representative of the averages of their national or regional areas of origin. c) Dissemination or mutual influence? Once arrived to Argentina, are the fertility levels of immigrants different from those of natives and in the direction predicted by their fertility at country of origin?13 Data in Table 8 answer “yes” for the years 1895 and 1914. By 1947 the foreign-born have slightly higher marital fertility than the natives in four of the five jurisdictions, showing the existence of a convergence of the fertility of both populations in the areas where the proportion of European immigrants was larger, Federal Capital, Buenos Aires, Santa Fe, and Mendoza but not in the

• ne with less European migrants and more migrants from neighboring countries (Tucumán).

13 Here it is important to take into account that the nationality is that of the woman, which may not be

that of her partner (see methodological section).

11 Table 8. Selected Argentinian jurisdictions. Mean number of children ever born to ever married women, by national origin. Census dates 1895 to 1947 Jurisdictions 1895 1914 1947 Natives Foreign born Natives Foreign born Natives Foreign born Federal Capital 4.5 4.2 4.2 3.9 2.2 2.4 Buenos Aires 5.5 4.7 5.4 4.7 3.2 3.2 Santa Fe

• 5.2

4.9 3.5 3.7 Mendoza

• 5.2

4.8 4.2 4.4 Tucumán

• 5.1

4.6 5.1 4.4 Notes: In 1895 and 1914, standardized by duration of marriage of the ever married female population of the Federal Capital in 1936. In 1947 standardized by age. In 1895 and 1914 includes stillbirths. In 1947, no specification about stillbirths. Sources: Elaborated by Pantelides (1995), with data from the 1895, 1914 and 1947 national censuses. It is noteworthy that the jurisdictions differ both in the fertility of their native and their foreign-born populations. There are two not mutually exclusive ways of interpreting this fact: a) that the foreign-born are not homogenous across jurisdictions (selectivity by place of destination), and b) that the jurisdictions’ environment is at least partially determining the fertility levels of both natives and foreigners. Table 9. Selected Argentinian jurisdictions. Mean number of children ever born to ever married women, by national origin, 1914 Jurisdictions Natives Italians Spaniards French Federal Capital 4.1 4.1 3.9 2.9 Buenos Aires 5.3 4.8 4.6 4.3 Santa Fe 5.2 5.1 4.5 4.1 Mendoza 5.2 4.9 4.7 4.1 Notes: Standardized by duration of marriage of the ever married female population of the Federal Capital in 1936. Includes stillbirths Sources: Elaborated by Pantelides (1995), with data from the 1914 national Census. Let us look closer at the fertility of natives and immigrants taking the year 1914 as an example (Table 9). a) The main number of children ever born to women of different nationalities varies depending on the area of residence. b) The fertility levels of all foreign nationalities are lower than the one for natives (except the Federal Capital with regards to Italians). c) The ordering of nationalities according to their fertility levels is the same in all jurisdictions going from the highest to the lowest level: natives, Italians, Spaniards, French.

12 Summarizing: although there are many uncontrolled factors that could not be included in the analysis (urban-rural residence, selectivity of migrants by place of destination), there are indications that both the place of origin and the place of destination of immigrants within Argentina influence their fertility level. Italians, Spaniards, French in the Capital have lower fertility than Italians, Spaniards, French in any other of the selected jurisdictions, the same as happens with the natives. The facts and the theories It is now necessary to summarize the main conclusions.

• 1. The influx of immigrants most of whom could not have children immediately after

arrival because of their sex and marriage status (single or unaccompanied, mostly men) distorted the CBR thus showing a decrease in fertility contemporaneous with the large European immigration flows that is not an accurate indication of declining fertility levels.

• 2. The fertility levels of the foreign-born signal a certain degree of adaptation to the

places of destination shown by the fact that the same national group had different fertility levels in different areas of settlement. On the other hand there is a distinctive fertility level of each migrant nationality since each one’s fertility level has the same relative position with respect to the others’.

• 3. The only evidence bearing on the hypothesis that migrants affected natives fertility

levels by way of diffusion of their own norms is that areas with a larger presence of foreign-born have and earlier and more substantial decline in fertility that areas with a smaller foreign born population. The influence of migration on the fertility levels of a population is important if we look at its effects on the age and sex structure of the population and in the marriage market. Or, from a different angle, if we consider the social and cultural changes immigrants may bring about, especially if they arrive in large numbers or if they occupy key positions, for example. However, theories that aim to explain the demographic transition and in particular theories on the determinants of fertility decline seldom take into account migration. Those who do are largely devoted to understand how the migratory experience itself influences the fertility of the migrants, an approach that is not useful to answer out research questions. If we refer only to the issue of the timing of the Argentinian fertility decline in the different areas, its characteristics lend support for Caldwell’s hypothesis about the effect of mass education on the family economy being a key determinant of the onset of the fertility transition (Caldwell 1980): the start of the fertility decline followed closely the expansion of mass education in the jurisdictions in our analysis as measured by the level of literacy (Table I, Appendix). This expansion of mass education was attained by the expansion of schooling as Caldwell requires. However, other components of Caldwell’s proposal that are necessary for the reversal of the intergenerational wealth flow seem to be present only in certain areas where the type of agrarian production originally made a large family an advantage that would later fade out with industrialized food production.

13 Another of Caldwell’s concepts comes closer to helping understand our findings. According to Caldwell westernization, the intrusion of Western culture into a region, which may be interpreted as synonymous with “areas of mostly purely European settlement” (Caldwell, 1982:128), drives the fertility transition. But Argentina, settled by Spaniards and their descendants, was mostly Western before the large European immigration influx and before the fertility decline happened. One theoretical approach that focuses more on individual behavior than in structural aspects looks at the comparison of the fertility of migrants and natives from the point of view

• f adaptation, a process by which migrants gradually would adopt the fertility of the receiving
• population. We have found a convergence in the fertility on natives and foreign- born with the

passage of time (Table 8), but this convergence is contemporaneous with a lowering of fertility levels in both groups that is proportionally greater among natives. It has also to be taken into account that the large migration flows of Europeans to Argentina lasted for most of the time of

• ur analysis, and later migrants may have had fertility levels different from earlier migrants

which makes our conclusions even more tentative.

14 REFERENCES Argentina, Dirección Nacional de Estadística y Censos (1956). Informe demográfico de la República Argentina, 1944-1954. Buenos Aires. Arretx C, Mellafe R, Somoza JL (1977). Fertility Estimate Trough the Own Children Method. An Application to Data from Argentina, 1895. Santiago de Chile: CELADE, Series A Nº 154. Baily SL (1980) Marriage patterns and immigrant assimilation to Buenos Aires, 1882-1923. Hispanic American Historical Review, 60 (1): 32-48. Bogue DJ, Palmore J (1964). Some empirical and analytic relations among demographic fertility

• measures. Demography I (1): 316-338.

Caldwell JC (1980). Mass education as a determinant of the timing of fertility decline. Population and Development Review 6 (2): 225-255. Caldwell JC (1982). Theory of Fertility Decline. London: Academic. Camisa Z (1964). República Argentina. Evaluación y ajuste del censo de población de 1960 por sexo y edad y tabla abreviada de mortalidad, 1959-1961. Santiago de Chile: CELADE, Serie C Nº 32. Camisa Z (1965). Argentina. Proyección de la población por sexo y edad, 1960-1980. Santiago de Chile: CELADE, Series C Nº 62. Coale AJ (1967) Factors associated with the development of low fertility: an historic summary. United Nations, Proceeding of the World Population Conference, Belgrade 1965, Vol II. New York. Collver OA (1965). Birth Rates in Latin America: New Estimates of Historical Trends and

• Fluctuations. Berkeley, USA: University of California, Institute of International Studies,

Research Series Nº 7. Cutright Ph, Hout M and Johnson DR (1976). Structural determinants of fertility in Latin America: 1800-1970. American Sociological Review 41: 511-527. Elizaga JC (1973). La evolución de la población de la Argentina en los últimos cien años. CELADE, Temas de población de la Argentina, aspectos demográficos, Series E Nº 13. CELADE: Santiago de Chile. Klein HS (1981). La integración de inmigrantes italianos en la Argentina y los Estados Unidos: un análisis comparativo. Desarrollo Económico 21 (81): 3-27. Knodel JE (1974). The Decline of Fertility in Germani, 1871-1939. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Lattes AE (1968). Evaluación y ajuste de algunos resultados de los tres primeros censos nacionales de población. Buenos Aires: Instituto T. Di Tella, Centro de Investigaciones Sociales, Documento de Trabajo Nº 51.

15 Lattes AE (1975). El crecimiento de la población y sus componentes demográficos entre 1870 y

• 1970. In Recchini de Lattes and Lattes (editors) La población de Argentina. Buenos Aires:

CICRED Series. Lesthaeghe RJ (1977). The Decline of Belgian Fertility, 1800-1970. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Livi-Bacci M (1968). Fertility and nuptiality changes in Spain from the late 18th to the early 20th century. Part I, Population Studies XXII (1): 83-102; Part II, Population Studies XXII (2): 211-234. Livi-Bacci M (1977). A History of Italian Fertility During the Last Two Centuries. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Martínez Cachero L (1970). La emigración española, a examen. Madrid: ASE. Mortara G (1947). Pesquisas sobre populaçoes americanas. Estudos Brasileiros de Demografía, Monografía 3. Nicolau R (2005). Población, salud y actividad. In Carreras A, Tafunell X (coordinators) Estadísticas históricas de España. Siglos XIX – XX. Bilbao, Spain: Fundación BBVA. Notestein FW (1945). Population: the long view. In Schultz (editor), Food for the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pantelides EA (1982). Las mujeres de alta fecundidad en la Argentina. Pasado y futuro. Buenos Aires: CENEP, Cuadernos del CENEP Nº 22. Pantelides EA (1995). La transición de la fecundidad en la Argentina 1869-1947. Buenos Aires:

• CENEP. Cuaderno del CENEP 54.

Puyol Antolín R (1979). Emigración y desigualdades sociales en España. Madrid: EMESA: Recchini de Lattes Z (1967).República Argentina. Corrección de la serie anual de nacimientos registrados por sexo y jurisdicción, 1911-1947. Buenos Aires: Instituto T. de Tella, Centro de Investigaciones sociales, Documento de Trabajo Nº 30. Recchini de Lattes Z (1969). Consecuencias demográficas de los movimientos migratorios internacionales en la República Argentina, 1870-1960. Naciones Unidas, Conferencia Mundial de Población, 1965. Nueva York.

Recchini de Lattes (1975). Población económicamente activa. In Recchini de Lattes and Lattes (editors), La población de Argentina. Buenos Aires: CICRED. Recchini de Lattes Z, Lattes AE, (1969). Migraciones en la Argentina. Estudio de las migraciones internas e internacionales basado en datos censales 1869-1960. Buenos Aires: Editorial del Instituto. Rothman AM (1973). La fecundidad en la Argentina entre 1869 y 1970. In CELADE, Temas de población de la Argentina. Aspectos demográficos. Buenos Aires: CELADE, Series E Nº 13. Santini A (1974). La fécondité. In Various authors, La population de l’Italie. Rome: CICRED Series.

16

Sckolnik S , Pantelides EA (1975). Los cambios en la composición de la población. In Recchini de Lattes and Lattes (editors), La población de Argentina. Buenos Aires: CICRED.

Somoza J (1967). Niveles y diferenciales de la fecundidad en la Argentina en el siglo XIX. Buenos Aires: Instituto T. de Tella, Centro de Investigaciones sociales, Documento de Trabajo Nº 45. Somoza J (1968). Argentina: la mortalidad según tablas de vida de 1914, 1946-1948 y 1959-

• 1961. Santiago de Chile: CELADE; Series A Nº 37.

Szuchman MD (1977). The limits of the melting pot in urban Argentina: marriage and integration in Cordoba, 1869-1909. Hispanic American Historical Eeview 57 (1): 24-50. Torrado S (1970). Natalidad y fecundidad en Argentina desde fines del siglo XIX. IUUSP, Conferencia Regional Latinoamericana de Población. México DF. Van de Walle E (1974). The Female Population of France in the Nineteenth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

17 APPENDIX Table I. Six Argentinian jurisdictions. Selected social indicators. Census years 1869 to 1947 Year and jurisdiction CBR GFR

% population in localities 10000 and more % illiterate (ages 14 and

• ver)

% foreign born

1869 Federal Capital 46.0 187.1 99.9 48.3 49.3 Buenos Aires 57.6 275.3 0.0 71.5 19.1 Santa Fe 58.2 259.8 38.0 74.0 15.6 Mendoza 47.7 186.1 0.0 81.3 9.4 Tucumán 62.6 252.3 16.0 88.4 0.3 Catamarca 54.5 213.9 0.0 86.8 0.5 1895 Federal Capital 42.5 166.9 99.9 29.8 52.1 Buenos Aires 49.7 275.0 9.0 45.0 31.0 Santa Fe 49.7 233.0 28.9 44.5 42.0 Mendoza 49.9 197.7 24.4 57.9 13.7 Tucumán 53.3 216.6 15.9 74.3 4.9 1914 Federal Capital 27.5 104.3 100.0 21.2 50.5 Buenos Aires 40.8 189.6 33.2 31.6 34.4 Santa Fe 41.1 194.4 31.8 34.7 35.4 Mendoza 48.6 209.5 21.2 41.4 32.0 Tucumán 49.1 205.4 28.2 52.3 9.9 1947 Federal Capital 14.8 47.0 99.9 5.7 27.5 Buenos Aires 21.0 78.5 61.1 9.8 18.3 Santa Fe 22.0 82.1 43.7 13.4 13.1 Mendoza 31.0 119.3 40.9 17.3 11.7 Tucumán 41.2 169.2 37.3 21.1 4.1 Notes: CBR (Crude birth rate): Number of births/Population x 1000. GFR (General fertility rate). Number of births/Female population ages 15-49 x 1000. CBRs and GFRs were calculated with 3-year averages with births corrected by Recchini de Lattes (1967) and Recchini de Lattes and Lattes (1969). Other sources: National censuses.