1. Paul Puschmann 1, Per-Olof Grönberg², Reto Schumacher³ & Koen Matthijs ⁴ ¹PhD. Fellow at Research Foundation Flanders (FWO); FaPoS, KU Leuven; Belgium. ²Centre for Population Studies, Umeå University; Sweden. ³NCCR Lives and Institute for Demographic and Life Course Studies, University of Geneva; Switzerland. FaPoS, KU Leuven; Belgium. To be Presented at the Fourth Urban Demography Network Meeting, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (MPIDR) Rostock, Germany; 2-May 2012

2.  Growing numbers of urban in-migrants in Western European cities  Causes of increase in urban in-migration: Agricultural crisis, population pressure in the countryside, gradual destruction of putting-out system Growing demand for laborers in urban environment: industry; commerce, services Working and living conditions in cities improve: Industry offers more permanent employment; more rights for laborers; cities become healthier places.  Fate of Urban Newcomers: Chicago School of Sociology: Newcomers end up on the edge of society Scholars who stress selectivity of migration: Integration of specific groups of newcomers, notably stayers and long-distance migration went rather smoothly.

3.  Major methodological shortcomings in existing literature: Chicago school of Sociology: Too problem-orientated Cross-sectional analysis of integration: Biased view toward stayers.  Advantages of Longitudinal Approach Integration is a longitudinal process Majority of migrants can be included More accurate techniques (event-history, sequence anlaysis, etc.) to measure demographic events (person years vs. persons)

4.  How did the social integration process of different groups of migrants evolve? Did some groups of migrants integrate easier than others? Are there differences regarding the integration process between Antwerp and Stockholm? Which characteristics of migrants stimulated or hampered integration? Were there differences in societal openness between Antwerp and Stockholm? Did industrialization encourage integration?  Social Integration: the ability of migrants to find their way in the city  Timing and incidence of marriage as Measures of Social-Integration.  Underlying assumption: time between arrival and marriage and family formation reflects the time it takes for newcomers to find, amongst other things, a good job, a decent living location and a suited marriage partner.

5.  Communalities Antwerp and Stockholm experienced considerable population growth, because of declining mortality and rising in-migration Both cities were port cities  Differences Stockholm went through a process of industrialization; in Antwerp industrialization hardly took root. In Stockholm the port played only a minor role in the city’s economy. In Antwerp the port dominated the whole city’s economy. Stockholm was a capital city, Antwerp was not.

6. AntwerpStockholmBased on: Population registers The ‘Roteman’ registration system Vital registration of births, marriages and deaths 33,583 life-coursesInformation on all inhabitants Intra- and intergeneration comparisons Contains information on:Socio-economic and demographic characteristicsHousehold composition Kin inside and outside the householdKin inside the household Marriage witnessesAllows to follow moves in the area  Disrtete-time event history analysis  Failure events: first marriage; first birth  Censoring: death, out migration, end of registration  life table estimator and plotted survival curves  Discrete time logit models

7. T ime to Marriage Time to First Birth Antwerp adult years since arrival adult years since arrival Stockholm adult years since arrival adult years since arrival

8. time to marriagetime to first birth ORp-valueORp-value years since immigration 1.1550.0001.3450.003 years squared 0.9920.0000.9850.001 age at immigration < 18 1ref1 19-24 1.1700.2600.9010.688 25-34 0.9010.5100.4290.006 35+ 0.6190.0260.0660.000 historical period 1846-1869 0.2590.0000.2630.000 1870-1889 1ref1 1890-1905 2.1500.0000.7370.217 1906-1922 3.5570.0000.3190.000 gender male 1ref1 female 0.9490.6501.3360.225 region of birth province of Antwerp 1.1130.4101.6400.063 Flanders 1ref1 Brussel area 1.3220.1920.3000.034 Wallonia 1.0090.9690.6010.236 outside Belgium 0.5930.0020.5340.069 unknown 0.4670.0420.2090.180 social class upper 0.9360.8120.6550.570 middle 0.8370.2540.5750.103 lower 1ref1 unknown 1.1260.3772.3050.005 year of immigration not known 0.5350.0000.2930.004 year of outmigration not known 1.5710.0001.0310.900 married 21.760.000 intercept -4.2470.000-4.8750.000 random intercept (stdev) 0.0030.4971.7220.000 observed person-years 1050810062 observed individuals 20102038 observed events 374213 time to marriagetime to first birth ORp-valueORp-value years since immigration 1.4830.0001.1090.000 years squared 0.9830.0000.9940.000 age at immigration < 18 1ref1 19-24 1.5340.0001.1590.043 25-34 2.0920.0000.9680.692 35 + 0.7730.0090.3760.000 historical period 1878-1889 1.1990.0001.0190.800 1890-1905 1ref1 1906-1927 0.9750.4500.6770.000 gender male 1ref1 female 0.7000.0000.9280.164 region of birth Stockholm county 1ref1 East central Sweden 0.8450.0050.8910.234 Southern Sweden 0.6900.0000.8870.204 Gothenburg 0.5880.0000.7290.231 Northwest central Sweden 0.6710.0000.9380.524 Northern Sweden 0.5520.0000.7450.041 unknown domestic 0.6680.0470.9290.826 Finland 0.5580.0005.7670.000 Norway 0.8240.1848.0550.000 Russia 2.0080.00016.3170.000 Germany 0.8780.2216.4130.000 other international 0.5590.0003.3630.000 social class upper 1.3960.0020.7500.109 middle 1.1280.0080.8250.008 lower 1ref1 unknown 0.9510.2510.9640.588 married 62.5450.000 intercept -5.3680.000-7.4300.000 random intercept 1.6050.0001.3330.000 observed person-years 292408335732 observed individuals 5189751786 observed events 78202941 Antwerp Stockholm

9.  Higher incidences of marriage and reproduction among migrants in Antwerp. Was Antwerp more open to newcomers?  Clear connection between age at arrival and Integration: The younger someone arrived the better the chances were for marriage and family formation  Industrialization did not increase access to marriage and reproduction; Industrialization did not facilitate integration. In Antwerp the chances of getting married grew over time in the absence of large-scale industrialization. Notwithstanding, large scale industrialization the chances of marrying among Stockholm’s migrants decreased over time.  No big gender differences: Only better chances for males to get married in Stockholm  In Antwerp and Stockholm the likelihood of getting married was smaller among international migrants (except Russians in Stockholm). International migrants had more trouble in getting integrated. Were they less attractive?  No significant difference in access to reproduction in Antwerp according to the migrants’ region of origin. In the case of Stockholm, international migrants did have a much higher probability of experiencing the birth of a first child.  In the case of Antwerp, no clear relationship between social class and marriage and start of reproduction. In the case of Stockholm: Middle class and upper class migrants had higher chances of getting married, but a lower chances of experiencing a first birth  The timing and incidence of the first marriage might be a better indicator of integration than the onset of reproduction in the period we studied: Decreased chances of experiencing a first birth might say more about birth control practices than about access to reproduction, especially in the case of Stockholm.  Correlation between bad registration of in and out-migration on the one hand and access to marriage and reproduction on the other hand: Statistical artifact or historical reality?