Ðåôåðàò: Portuguese emigration after World War II
Ðåôåðàò: Portuguese emigration after World War II
Portuguese
Emigration After World War II
(essay)
The
northern Portuguese landscape is dotted with old houses that are architecturally
exotic, with plenty of small, picturesque towers and innumerable decorative elements.
One also finds new houses, architecturally reminiscent of northern European cottages,
with black roofs and large windows. Then there are expensive suburban houses,
which their owners have covered with colorful tiles. A significant number of these
are currently being built or enlarged.
These
are the houses of former or present-day emigrants. The older ones are known as
Brazilian houses and the more recent as French houses. Seemingly out of context,
they dot the traditional landscape and constitute the most obvious material evidence
that emigration has been a constant feature of modern Portuguese life.
Although
Portuguese migrated to the United States, Venezuela, Germany, and Luxembourg (to
name just a few of the countries where sizable Portuguese immigrant communities
have settled historically), the labeling of these houses is rooted in the country’s
migratory experience. Up to the 1950s, Brazil received more than 80 percent of
Portuguese migratory flows, and France approximately half from that period on.
The
objective of this chapter is to present a general overview of the Portuguese migratory
experience from World War II to the 1980s. It is, however, important to emphasize
that Portuguese migration has been a significant historical process for centuries,
one that has changed not only the country’s landscape but also its way of life and
its people’s mentality.
The
analysis presented here is based on the assumption that Portuguese emigration is
essentially an international labor flow, which has changed according to the demand
for labor in the international market of the macro geographical system to which
the country belongs. Its evolution has depended not only on the potential migrants’
assessment of available rewards for labor abroad, but also on the political sanctioning
of the “recipient” nations and the strength of the migrant network active at both
ends of the trajectory.
Migration
Policies: The Legal Framework
The
Marshall Plan gave Western Europe the means with which to launch its postwar economic
recovery. [1] Southern
Europe and other peripheral regions covered the initial labor shortages resulting
from war casualties, and later substituted native labor in the so-called dirty and
low-paid jobs. Thus, between 1958 and 1973, the six countries of the European Economic
Community issued eight million first work permits to facilitate a mass transfer
of labor from the peripheral south to the industrialized north of Europe.
It
was only from the 1960s on that Portugal began to participate substantially in
this intra-European transfer of labor. This can be shown with an analysis of foreign
arrivals in France between 1950 and 1974. France was a major destination for migration
in this period and the preferred destination for Portuguese emigrants. Between
1950 and 1959, Italians represented more than half of the total foreign inflow.
In 1960, Spaniards equaled the number of Italians entering France, with each of
these nationalities contributing 30,000 migrants to a total of 72,600 arrivals.
The Spaniards replaced the Italians as France’s main suppliers of foreign labor
from 1961 to 1965, and were in turn replaced by the Portuguese from 1966 to
1972. From 1962 on, Portugal’s share grew constantly. In 1970 and 1971, Portuguese
migration peaked. In an overall total of 255,000 arrivals in 1970 and 218,000 in
1971, the Portuguese contribution represented 53 percent (136,000) and 51 percent
(111,000 migrants) respectively. [2]
The
Portuguese did not simply replace the Italians and the Spaniards numerically;
they also took up jobs left vacant by them in public works, construction, and
the domestic and personal service sectors, as well as in agriculture. [3] An analysis of the structure of the active native
and foreign labor force in France also suggests that the labor market was segmented,
with certain jobs specifically taken up by foreign laborers in the public works
and construction sectors. [4]
The
oil crisis of 1973-74 and the restrictive immigration policies of receiving countries
halted the influx of foreigners. Up to then, however, the major recipient European
countries had “open door” immigration policies. The same cannot be said of Portuguese
migratory policy. Indeed, until 1974, individual freedom to emigrate was subordinated
to the economic and imperial aims of the state. According to Article 31 of the
1933 Constitution, “The state has the right and the obligation to coordinate and
regulate the economic and social life of the Nation with the objective of populating
the national territories, protecting emigrants, and disciplining emigration.”
The Estado Novo tried to attain three key goals with this policy: to meet the country’s
own labor needs, to satisfy its interests in Africa, and to benefit from emigrant
remittances with a supervised export of labor.
In
order to insure the attainment of these goals the Estado Novo enacted several policy
measures concerning emigration. Thus, in 1944 the issuing of ordinary passports
to any industrial worker or rural labor was interdicted; in 1947, after a temporary
total ban on emigration, a special government agency, simultaneously dependent on
the Foreign and the Interior ministries, was created to regulate and supervise emigration.
The Junta da Emigração aimed to implement a quota system that defined
the maximum number of departures by region and occupation, after taking into account
regional labor needs and the structure of the active population.
According
to the same logic, several bilateral treaties were signed in the 1960s with the
Netherlands, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany. These treaties, which
explicitly aimed to maximize economic returns from emigration to these countries,
were accompanied by an order to the Emigration Services to allow a maximum of
thirty thousand legal departures a year, and by a total ban on the legal departure
of those engaged in specific occupations. [5]
The combined effect of these policies was to ensure a migratory flow that the
state considered beneficial to the country’s labor supply and to its economic development.
The
rationale behind this last set of governmental policies has to be linked to the
new economic model of development endorsed by the Estado Novo during the 60’s. In
fact, while the previous model of economic development favored the labor-intensive
traditional industries in northern Portugal and rural development, the new model
favored the creation of a leading modern industrial sector in the Metropolitan Area
of Lisbon. It was thought that this new industrial sector in conjunction with emigration
would absorb the rural surplus. It was also thought that this industrial sector,
along with the banking and insurance sectors also centered mainly in the Lisbon
area, would absorb the majority of skilled or highly skilled workers and professionals.
In fact, neither of these groups was particularly inclined toward emigration.
On
the eve of the 1974 Revolution, the state was ready to promulgate an unprecedented
liberal law, justified on the grounds that emigration was highly beneficial for
Portugal because it promoted gains in productivity and the rationalization of
production methods. The law concluded with the following statement: “Emigration,
which acts as a positive factor in modernization and the rationalization of labor,
contributed greatly to the progress and development of the country.” [6] Individual freedom to emigrate and return were
finally written into the 1976 Constitution. By that time, however, most European
countries had shifted to a “closed-door” policy.
The Evolution of Migration Flows
Between
1950 and 1988, the Portuguese Emigration Bureau, the Secretaria de Estado de Emigração,
registered 1,375,000 legal departures. [7] Of these,
five countries absorbed 82 percent (see Table 10.1). This official picture should
be compared with French and German sources, which state that the number of Portuguese
migrants entering these two countries, during this period, was 1,259,000 immigrants.
[8] Even revising Portuguese emigration figures
taking into account only these two destinations, emigration between 1950 and
1988 totaled at least 2,152,000. This means that during this period, at least
36 percent of Portuguese migrants left the country illegally. [9]
No
systematic study has ever been made of clandestine migrants. The study of illegal
Portuguese migration in other historical periods, as well as available information
on illegal departures to Europe after World War II, however, indicates that clandestine
flows differ significantly from legal ones. Illegal Portuguese migrants tend to
be isolated and unskilled males in their prime; this increases the likelihood
that legal flows do not accurately reflect actual migratory flows between 1950 and
1988. [10]
One
corrective for the discrepancies in the official figures is to examine the relative
attraction of the principal recipient countries. According to French and German
records, we can correct the distribution in Table 10.2. Table 10.1 (Legal Departures))
shows that the two preferred European destinations (France and Germany) attracted
35 percent of the total between 1950 and 1988, and that the three overseas destinations
(Brazil, Canada, and the United States) attracted 47 percent. Table 10.2 (Legal
and Illegal Departures), by contrast, indicates that the two key European destinations
accounted for 59 percent of the total, and the three overseas destinations for
just 30 percent, in the same period.
TABLE
10.1 Principal Destinations of Portuguese Legal Emigration, 1950-1988 (in thousands)
|
Legal Departures |
Percentage |
France |
347 |
25.0 |
Brazil |
321 |
23.0 |
United States |
193 |
14.0 |
Germany |
135 |
10.0 |
Canada |
138 |
10.0 |
Other |
241 |
18.0 |
TOTAL |
1,375 |
100.0 |
TABLE
10.2 Principal Destinations of Portuguese Emigration, 1950-1988 (in thousands)
|
Legal and Illegal
Departures |
Percentage |
France |
1,024 |
48.0 |
Brazil |
321 |
15.0 |
United States |
193 |
9.0 |
Germany |
235 |
11.0 |
Canada |
138 |
6.0 |
Other |
241 |
11.0 |
TOTAL |
2,152 |
100.0 |
We
can also correct the yearly totals by destination (see Table 10.6), which helps
to obtain a better sense of the evolution of the “true” Portuguese migratory flow.
The first remarkable change indicated in Table 10.6 is the intensity of growth of
the total migratory flow. The annual average number of departures jumped from
33,000 in 1955-59 to 55,000 in 1960-64, 110,000 in 1965-69, and 134,000 in
1970-74. The average declined drastically to 37,000 in 1975-79, the same level of
average annual departures attained in the initial period (1950-54). Numbers decreased
even further to 17,000 average departures between 1980 and 1988. This intense and
sustained growth in the 1960s and early 1970s can be attributed to the Portuguese
migratory flow to Europe, particularly to France, which absorbed 60 percent of
the total migratory flow in this period.
Figura 1 –
Não digitalizada.
São precisos
os dados para construir o gráfico.
|
The
data from Table 10.6 can be visually summarized in Figure 10.1. Both Table 10.6
and Figure 10.1 show that Portuguese emigration grew constantly and substantially
from 1950, when departures numbered 22,000, to 1970, when departures numbered
183,000. It declined from 1971 to 1988, as departures dropped from 158,000 to
13,000. The peak years of Portuguese emigration after World War II occurred between
1965 and 1974, when the annual average number of departures reached 122,000.
It
can also be inferred that three major changes in preferred destinations took place
between 1950 and 1979. In the first decade (1950-59), the overseas flow was clearly
dominant. Indeed, of the 350,000 departures, 327,000 (93 percent) went overseas.
A single country, Brazil, absorbed 68 percent of the global total of departures.
In the following decade (1960-69), the overseas flow lost its relevance. Europe
attracted 68 percent of the total number of departures, with France absorbing
59 percent of the global total. This shift occurred in 1962-63. In 1962, total
departures numbered 43,000, of which 24,000 went overseas (57 percent) and
19,000 went to Europe (43 percent). In 1963, the total number of departures
numbered 55,000, of which 22,000 (41 percent) went overseas and 33,000 (59 percent)
to Europe. Europe clearly dominated between 1963 and 1977, but from then on, overseas
destinations became dominant again. The European share fell from 56 percent in
1977 to 43 percent in 1978 and 39 percent in 1979. In the last period, 1980-88,
overseas destinations accounted for 51 percent of all departures.
The
change in the relative weight of migratory flows overseas is not the only noticeable
shift. Although they tended to decrease in absolute terms, overseas flows did not
register any dramatic change before 1979. They did, however, register a major
change in the absolute and relative weight of the receiving countries. In the early
1960s, the contraction of the flow to Brazil was quite dramatic: the average annual
number of departures to that country fell from twelve thousand to three thousand
between 1960-64 and 1965-69. The United States and Canada took Brazil’s place
during this period; the annual number of departures to the United States rose
from three thousand in 1960-64 to ten thousand in 1965-69, and to Canada the total
rose from four thousand to six thousand.
It
is thought that lack of information on illegal migrants creates a bias in the relative
weight of each sex, in the distribution by age group, and in the distribution
by marital status. Origin and distribution by economic activity are meant to be
the characteristics least affected, if not in absolute at least in relative terms.
This analysis will therefore focus on the more reliable factors. Table IO.3 shows
the distribution of Portuguese emigration by region of origin.
Because
the contributions of the islands and the mainland are quite different in terms of
their respective shares in total flows, their direction, and the characteristics
of their migrants, they will be treated separately. Between 1950 and 1988, the islands’
migratory flow accounted for 21 percent of the total, and was overwhelmingly directed
overseas. The Azorean flow went to the United States and grew markedly during
the 1960s and the 1970s, particularly after the United States passed the 1965 amendments
favoring family reunification in the concession of U.S. immigrant visas and revised
its national origin quota system, in place since 1968. These measures increased
the share of southern European migration and the Portuguese quota of entry with
it. [11] Madeira’s
flow contracted markedly after the 1950s, when Brazil ceased to be a major destination,
and has remained at a relatively low level since.
TABLE
10.3 Percentage of Portuguese Emigration by District, 1950-1988
|
1950-59 |
1960-69 |
1970-79 |
1950-79 |
1980-88 |
Aveiro |
10.74 |
6.62 |
7.32 |
7.84 |
10.93 |
Beja |
0.18 |
1.08 |
2.04 |
1.13 |
0.45 |
Braga |
6.04 |
9.31 |
6.24 |
7.63 |
4.01 |
Bragança |
6.32 |
3.78 |
1.81 |
3.85 |
1.06 |
C. Branco |
1.43 |
5.17 |
1.94 |
3.33 |
1.15 |
Coimbra |
4.80 |
2.84 |
3.78 |
3.59 |
3.65 |
Évora |
0.10 |
0.38 |
0.73 |
0.41 |
0.24 |
Faro |
2.25 |
3.69 |
2.45 |
2.98 |
1.28 |
Guarda |
6.76 |
5.80 |
2.29 |
5.04 |
2.22 |
Leiria |
3.98 |
7.66 |
6.88 |
6.53 |
4.95 |
Lisbon |
2.17 |
8.10 |
12.14 |
7.78 |
18.91 |
Portalegre |
0.15 |
0.37 |
0.31 |
0.30 |
0.20 |
Porto |
10.47 |
8.55 |
7.73 |
8.79 |
7.76 |
Santarém |
1.94 |
3.79 |
3.42 |
3.23 |
3.50 |
Setúbal |
0.32 |
1.75 |
3.08 |
1.77 |
5.19 |
V. do Castelo |
4.64 |
5.63 |
2.97 |
4.63 |
3.52 |
Vila Real |
5.54 |
3.88 |
3.98 |
4.32 |
4.21 |
Viseu |
10.59 |
4.73 |
5.39 |
6.37 |
3.26 |
Total mainland |
78.41 |
83.12 |
74.51 |
79.51 |
76.50 |
Azores |
6.14 |
11.17 |
19.30 |
12.23 |
21.21 |
Madeira |
13.75 |
5.63 |
6.17 |
7.80 |
2.29 |
Unknown |
1.70 |
0.08 |
0.01 |
0.46 |
0.00 |
TOTAL |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
Total number of
emigrants |
342,928 |
646,962 |
392,517 |
1,382,407 |
89,562 |
The
flow from the mainland in the period 1950-88 represented 79 percent of the global
flow. It was essentially directed toward Europe, particularly to France and Germany.
It is possible to conclude from Table 10.3 that three regions of the mainland –
the Lisbon interior, the Alentejo, and the Algarve – were poor sources of emigration.
Together these three regions supplied only a total of 111,000 migrants between
1950 and 1988. This figure is lower than the total of any of the other five regions
considered individually. The heaviest suppliers of the period were the coastal
regions, always contributing more than half the total migrants. The northern coast
alone provided 305,000 migrants (26 percent of all the mainland flow).
An
analysis by periods shows that the most remarkable change is in the numbers leaving
from the Lisbon coastal region. In the 1950s, this region had only 8,500 emigrants.
The number rose to 64,000 and 60,000 during the 1960s and 1970s, respectively,
when France and Germany became the preferred countries of destination. The Lisbon
coastal region became the country’s main migratory area between 1980 and 1988,
representing 24 percent (22,000 migrants) of mainland total legal flows.
This
change seems to be connected to a major difference between the composition of migration
flows overseas and to Europe. When directed overseas, migration was essentially
from rural areas, both on the mainland and on the islands. When directed to Europe,
it was increased linked to the most urban and industrial areas. Current trends
show an even clearer intensification of this pattern, as documented by the growth
of the Lisbon coastal region.
Key Migrant Characteristics
An
analysis of the economic characteristics of the legal migrants will help complement
the characterization so far done. Table 10.4, which summarizes legal migrant characteristics
between 1955 and 1988, indicates that of the economically active migrants who left
the country legally, 26 percent in 1955-59, 38 percent in the 1960s, and 50 percent
in the 1970s were engaged in the secondary economic sector. Equally relevant is
the increase in the annual number of departures from this sector. It rose from
5,000 in 1955-59 to 10,600 in 1960-69, clearly pointing to the greater attraction
that European labor markets exerted over the urban and industrial sectors.
As
noted earlier, inferences from the legal registers on sex-, age-, and marital
status-are risky. Nevertheless, Table 10.4 permits two conclusions. First, the
flow overseas that was dominant in the 1950s was more male dominated and tended
less toward family reunification than the European flow. Second, the European
flow experienced a first wave in the 1960s, a flow dominated by isolated departures
of single or married males in their prime, followed by a second wave in the
1970s, consisting largely of family reunification flows, as suggested by the growing
share of children under 15 years of age and the number of married female migrants.
TABLE
10.4 Characteristics of Legal Migrants, 1955-1988
|
1955-59 |
1960-69 |
1970-79 |
1980-88 |
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
GENDER |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Male |
96,357 |
60.35 |
378,080 |
58.44 |
210,347 |
58.79 |
50,253 |
56.11 |
Female |
63,300 |
39.65 |
268,882 |
41.56 |
147,455 |
41.21 |
39,309 |
43.89 |
AGE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-15 |
37,376 |
23.41 |
171,434 |
26.50 |
99,757 |
27.88 |
21,695 |
24.22 |
15-64 |
120,104 |
75.23 |
468,994 |
72.49 |
254,163 |
71.03 |
66,165 |
73.88 |
65+ |
2,177 |
1.36 |
6,534 |
1.01 |
3,882 |
1.08 |
1,702 |
1.90 |
MARITAL STATUS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S |
93,066 |
58.29 |
307,161 |
47.48 |
166,593 |
46.56 |
39,545 |
44.15 |
M |
63,608 |
39.84 |
329,594 |
50.94 |
185,894 |
51.95 |
47,789 |
53.36 |
Other |
2,983 |
1.87 |
10,207 |
1.58 |
5,315 |
1.49 |
2,228 |
2.49 |
ECONOMIC SECTORa
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1ary |
43,634 |
56.43 |
140,730 |
50.05 |
54,175 |
32.39 |
6,157 |
16.86 |
2ary |
20,245 |
26.18 |
105,908 |
37.67 |
84,101 |
50.29 |
23,421 |
64.15 |
3ary |
13,448 |
17.39 |
34,539 |
12.28 |
28,969 |
17.32 |
6,932 |
18.99 |
TOTAL ACTIVE |
77,327 |
100.00 |
281,177 |
100.00 |
167,245 |
100.00 |
36,510 |
100.00 |
INACTIVE |
52,425 |
40.40 |
240,399 |
46.09 |
163,155 |
49.38 |
53,052 |
59.23 |
TOTAL |
129,752 |
|
521,576 |
|
330,400 |
|
89,562 |
|
TOTAL |
159,657 |
100.00 |
646,962 |
100.00 |
357,802 |
100.00 |
89,562 |
100.00 |
SOURCE:
SECP, Boletim anual, 1980-81,1988.
aEmignnts
aged 10 or older.
French
sources confirm this change in composition. Between 1960 and 1971, workers represented
68 percent of the Portuguese arrivals to that country. From 1972 to 1979, on the
other hand, they represented only 37 percent, and from 1980 to 1988 just 36 percent.
[12] Both Portuguese and receiving country data also
indicate that after 1970, a growing number of Portuguese immigrants either decided
or were forced to return to Portugal.
Return Migration
The
myth of the return is deeply embedded in Portuguese emigrant culture. It plays a
role in the decision to leave, and it is an important reason why, before World
War II, men migrated while women stayed, even though many men never returned. [13] Portuguese emigration to Europe in the
1960s initially fit this traditional pattern. After a decade, however, family reunification
became a new trait of Portuguese emigration because of the proximity of the host
societies, new means of transportation, and labor opportunities for women in the
receiving areas. [14] Yet even
then, the desire to return was not abandoned.
The
number of returnees, their sociodemographic characteristics, their social reintegration,
and its economic impact are perhaps the most researched topics in recent migration
studies. [15] From these
studies, it is possible to make several observations. After ten to fourteen years
of working permanently abroad, the objectives that led a significant number of
men to leave Portugal, and later to call their families to join them, apparently
were attained. Various factors, moreover, seem to indicate the culmination of a
cycle of family migratory projects. For example, the number of yearly returnees
grew: seven thousand in the 1960s, thirteen thousand in the 1970s, and fifty-two
thousand in the 1980s. [16] Among
the returnees, 25 percent in 1970 and 32 percent in 1980-81 were between the ages
of I and 19. And 86 percent of returnees were already married when they first emigrated.
Predictably,
returnees were mostly male (71 percent of the total). This was because migratory
flows were male-dominated until the 1970s, and because for a significant number
of migrants family reunification and second-generation educational prospects in
host societies made staying there appear more favorable than returning. [17] Most returnees were originally connected to
agriculture in Portugal, and 90 percent returned, if not to agriculture, at least
to their communities of birth. More than half were over 45 years old, and one-third
were older than 56. Of those who went to France, 56 percent worked in construction
and public works.
Returnees
followed a dominant economic trajectory. Before emigration, 45 percent worked in
agriculture and 18 percent in construction. As emigrants, 37 percent worked in
construction and 32 percent in manufacturing. [18]
On returning, 38 percent worked in agriculture, 18 percent in construction, and
17 percent in small trades or catering. It is important to note that only 59 percent
of returnees opted for an active life, and that the majority of those working in
agriculture or small businesses were self employed.
For
the majority of these returning migrants, emigration was a success story. [19] A house, major appliances, a car, a small
trade or restaurant, the opportunity for wives to stop working, the return to
the region of departure, and a varying, but frequently reasonable, level of savings
all guaranteed upward mobility.
As
far as the Portuguese economy is concerned, however, returnee contributions are
debatable. The overwhelming majority of returnees either are illiterate (12 percent),
have no formal schooling (24 percent), or have attended only primary school (56
percent). New skills acquired have not been easily transferable; nor are former
emigrants interested in taking up the same jobs they had abroad. They have used
their savings primarily for consumption rather than productive investment. It is
undeniable, however, that they have made a major contribution to regional development,
and that with more adequate policies, their contribution could increase.
We
have described the main features of the Portuguese emigration and return migration.
In the last part of this section, we will try to assess its impact on the Portuguese
economy and demography.
In
demographic terms, the impact of emigration between 1960 and 1979, the heaviest
period, represented 47 to 55 percent of the country’s natural population growth.
Yearly migration rates during that period varied from 5.3 to 6.1 migrants per
thousand inhabitants, while the annual average number of departures was 82,419.
In the same period, returns are estimated to have been between 30,000 and
37,000; Portugal’s annual natural population growth was 95,693. Thus, net migration
can be estimated at between 45,400 and 52,400. Based on the 1970 census (total
population 8.569 million), the yearly migration rate between 1960 and 1979 must
have oscillated between 5.3 and 6.1 migrants per thousand. [20]
For
intercensus periods the numbers were as shown in table 10.5. It is important to
remark that these figures do not account for total impact, because migration caused
a significant part of the country’s demographic potential to go unfulfilled.
TABLE
10.5 Demographic Evolution, 1951-1981 (in thousands)
|
Natural Growth |
Effective Growth |
Net Migration |
1951-60 |
1,090.8 |
410.0 |
-680.8 |
1961-70 |
10,720.6 |
-282.6 |
-1,355.2 |
1971-81 |
838.7 |
1,284.1 |
+445.4 |
In
economic terms, between 1973 and 1979, emigrant remittances represented 8.22 percent
of the gross domestic product; between 1980 and 1989, the number rose to 10 percent.
As a percentage of the GDP, remittances varied between 5.6 in 1975 and 12.1 in
1979, according to the Instituto Nacional de Estatística. Considering the
relative weight of remittances in relation to the country’s exports, the figures
are even more impressive. Remittances increased from 13 percent of the country’s
exports in the 1950s to 25 percent in the 1960s and 56 percent in the 1970s.
These
crude indicators illustrate the impact of Portuguese emigration on the country’s
economy and demography, but they do not tell whether that impact was beneficial.
The latest econometric simulations to measure the trade-off between emigration and
remittances suggest that “past emigration had positive welfare effects, which means
that the positive effects of remittances dominate the negative welfare effects of
depopulation. However, the annual growth of domestic production has been slowed
down by about half a percentage point.” [21]
Changes
in the 1970s
With
or without state permission, by the mid-1960s and early 1970s, the Portuguese were
leaving the country in increasing numbers. Sociologists and historians working
during those years stressed the duality of Portuguese society and the imbalances
of the country’s economic structure as the main factors driving a growing number
of migrants out of the country. [22] Economists
prefer to emphasize pull factors, and they name the wage differential between Portugal
and the receiving countries as the main factor driving Portuguese emigration. [23] According to one recent study, changes in
the productive structure in the 1960s created high natural rates of unemployment
and chronic underemployment in the agricultural and family craft sectors, thereby
giving a growing number of Portuguese men in their prime strong reasons to migrate
to improve their lives. [24]
The
push-pull factors analyzed in these works were obviously important, but for the
most part, they ignore the condition that if international labor flows are indeed
demand-oriented, the response of each individual does not depend on the evolution
of the labor market in the host country alone. Indeed, the evolution of migration
after 1974 clearly reflects the impact of other factors, namely, the political
sanctions of the recipient nations and the strength of migrant networks active at
both ends of the trajectory. Without taking these factors into consideration, how
can the extremely low migratory flows of the period be explained?
Economic
recession in most of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) countries after the mid-1970s, and conditions in Portugal in the aftermath
of the 1974 Revolution, were aggravated by the forced return of four hundred thousand
Portuguese from the former African colonies, along with one hundred thousand troops.
Emigration was abruptly halted by the receiving societies in the early 1970s,
which aggravated the economic situation. All these factors, plus the legal prohibition
of firing and dismissing employees, led the private sector to avoid new permanent
labor contracts. This change, in turn, brought about major changes in the national
labor market. [25]
Unemployment
jumped from 86,000 in 1974 to 222,000 in 1975, and continued to grow. In 1980
the number of unemployed was 340,000, and by 1983, the figure had reached
446,000 thousand, or 10.5 percent of the active population. Furthermore, as economists
Jose Barosa and Pedro Pereira note, “[measured] unemployment does not tell the
whole story, as a survey of the Ministry of Labor found 95,000 workers in 1983
to be wageless.” [26] As they
also point out, the labor market began to show signs of recovery in 1979, after
new legislation in October 1977 gave the private sector flexibility to hire workers
over a fixed period. Unemployment finally decreased, dropping to 8.5 percent in
1985, to 7 percent in 1987, and to 5.7 percent in 1988. Even today, an increasing
number of the new jobs are still based on short-term contracts.
As
noted earlier, Portuguese migratory flows to Europe peaked in 1970 and tended to
decrease thereafter, but it was only after the oil crisis 1973-74 that great and
sudden reductions were observed. The drop in migrant workers was even greater, at
least until 1986. For France, the data indicate that workers dominated the migratory
flow to that country until 1971. Between 1972 and 1977, their relative share fell
but remained significant. From 1978 to 1985, the flow was overwhelmingly composed
of family members. For 1987-89, the three last years for which information is available,
workers were dominant, although less than before; they represented 74 percent of
the 17,000 immigrants arriving in France.
Deteriorating
economic conditions and mass return migration from the former colonies undoubtedly
increased migratory pressure in this period; annual average departures, however,
fell from 122,000 per year between 1968 and 1975 to 22,000 per year between
1976 and 1988. Economic factors alone cannot explain the contraction in flows in
the latter period. Restrictive migratory policies in the traditional recipient
countries and the lack of sizable migratory networks functioning in other destinations
left potential migrants temporarily without alternatives. Portuguese scholars
wrote the obituary for Portuguese emigration to Europe in 1985 at an international
meeting called “Portugal and Europe: The End of a Migratory Cycle.” [27] It was too soon, however. Indeed, Portuguese
emigration to Europe is, once again, a significant phenomenon. In fact, a new European
migratory cycle, this time mainly directed to Switzerland, took off during the
80’s. Just between 1986 and 1993 more than 117,000 Portuguese permanent immigrants
entered that country. [28] It should
come as no surprise if in some years’ time, we see the Portuguese landscape enriched
with a new set of houses, perhaps labeled Swiss houses. When they appear, they
will once again give evidence of Portugal’s most constant modern historical phenomenon:
emigration.
TABLE
10.6 Portuguese Emigration by Destination, 1950-1988
|
Brazil |
USA |
Canada |
Total
Overseas
|
France |
Germany |
Other Europe |
Total Europe |
Total |
% |
1950 |
14,143 |
938 |
– |
21,491 |
319 |
1 |
81 |
401 |
21,892 |
1.83 |
1951 |
28,104 |
676 |
– |
33,341 |
418 |
2 |
254 |
674 |
34,015 |
1.98 |
1952 |
41,518 |
582 |
– |
46,544 |
650 |
4 |
209 |
863 |
47,407 |
1.82 |
1953 |
32,159 |
1,455 |
– |
39,026 |
690 |
– |
246 |
936 |
39,962 |
2.34 |
1954 |
29,943 |
1,918 |
– |
40,234 |
747 |
4 |
205 |
956 |
41,190 |
2.32 |
1955 |
18,486 |
1,328 |
– |
28,690 |
1,336 |
– |
121 |
1,457 |
30,147 |
4.83 |
1956 |
16,814 |
1,503 |
1,612 |
26,072 |
1,851 |
6 |
167 |
2,024 |
28,096 |
7.20 |
1957 |
19,931 |
1,628 |
4.158 |
32,150 |
4,640 |
5 |
99 |
4,744 |
36,894 |
l2.86 |
1958 |
19,829 |
1,596 |
1,619 |
29,207 |
6,264 |
2 |
l27 |
6,393 |
35,600 |
17.96 |
1959 |
16,400 |
4,569 |
3,961 |
29,780 |
4,838 |
6 |
130 |
4,974 |
34,754 |
14.31 |
1960 |
12,451 |
5,679 |
4,895 |
28,513 |
6,434 |
54 |
158 |
6,646 |
35,159 |
18.90 |
1961 |
16,073 |
3,370 |
2,635 |
27,499 |
10,492 |
277 |
304 |
11,073 |
38,572 |
28.71 |
1962 |
13,555 |
2,425 |
2,739 |
24,376 |
16,798 |
1,393 |
435 |
18,626 |
43,002 |
43.31 |
1963 |
11,281 |
2,922 |
3,424 |
22,420 |
29,843 |
2,118 |
837 |
32,798 |
55,218 |
59.40 |
1964 |
4,929 |
1,601 |
4,770 |
17,232 |
51,668 |
4,771 |
1,905 |
58,344 |
75,576 |
77.20 |
1965 |
3,051 |
1,852 |
5,197 |
17,557 |
60,267 |
12,197 |
1,467 |
73,931 |
91,488 |
80.81 |
1966 |
2,607 |
13,357 |
6,795 |
33,266 |
63,611 |
11,250 |
3,868 |
78,729 |
111,995 |
70.30 |
1967 |
3,271 |
11,516 |
6,615 |
28,584 |
59,597 |
4,070 |
2,461 |
66,128 |
94,712 |
69.82 |
1968 |
3,512 |
10,841 |
6,833 |
27,014 |
58,741 |
8,435 |
2,037 |
69,213 |
96,227 |
71.93 |
1969 |
2,537 |
13,111 |
6,502 |
27,383 |
110,614 |
15,406 |
2,269 |
128,289 |
155,672 |
82.41 |
1970 |
1,669 |
9,726 |
6,529 |
22,659 |
135,667 |
22,915 |
1,964 |
160,546 |
183,205 |
87.63 |
1971 |
1,200 |
8,839 |
6,983 |
21,962 |
110,820 |
24,273 |
1,418 |
136,511 |
158,473 |
86.14 |
1972 |
1,158 |
7,574 |
6,845 |
20,l22 |
68,692 |
24,946 |
1,785 |
95,423 |
115,545 |
82.59 |
1973 |
890 |
8,160 |
7,403 |
22,091 |
63,942 |
38,444 |
5,255 |
107,641 |
129,732 |
82.97 |
1974 |
729 |
9,540 |
11,650 |
25,822 |
37,727 |
13,352 |
3,958 |
55,037 |
80,859 |
68.07 |
1975 |
1,553 |
8,975 |
5,857 |
19,304 |
23,436 |
8,177 |
1,569 |
33,182 |
52,486 |
63.22 |
1976 |
837 |
7,499 |
3,585 |
14,762 |
17,919 |
5,913 |
598 |
24,430 |
39,192 |
62.33 |
1977 |
557 |
6,748 |
2,280 |
14,826 |
13,265 |
4,835 |
750 |
18,850 |
33,676 |
55.97 |
1978 |
323 |
8,171 |
1,871 |
16,307 |
7,406 |
4,509 |
636 |
12,551 |
28,858 |
43.49 |
1979 |
215 |
8,181 |
2,805 |
17,532 |
5,987 |
4,400 |
807 |
11,194 |
28,726 |
38.97 |
1980 |
230 |
4,999 |
2,334 |
15,281 |
5,200 |
4,000 |
692 |
9,892 |
25,173 |
39.30 |
1981 |
228 |
4,295 |
2,196 |
14,498 |
8,600 |
3,100 |
409 |
12,109 |
26,607 |
45.51 |
1982 |
187 |
1,889 |
1,484 |
9,420 |
17,900 |
1,900 |
285 |
20,085 |
29,505 |
68.07 |
1983 |
197 |
2,437 |
823 |
6,242 |
6,300 |
1,500 |
166 |
7,966 |
14,208 |
56.07 |
1984 |
121 |
2,651 |
764 |
5,747 |
4,600 |
1,400 |
116 |
6,116 |
11,863 |
51.56 |
1985 |
136 |
2,783 |
791 |
5,842 |
4,000 |
1,600 |
109 |
5,709 |
11,551 |
49.42 |
1986 |
91 |
2,704 |
983 |
5,024 |
1,800 |
3,100 |
280 |
5,180 |
10,204 |
50.76 |
1987 |
28 |
2,643 |
3,398 |
7,757 |
400 |
3,100 |
158 |
3,658 |
11,415 |
32.05 |
1988 |
21 |
2,112 |
5,646 |
8,934 |
600 |
3,600 |
198 |
4,398 |
13,332 |
32.99 |
[1] The following
discussion draws heavily on four publications by Maria I. B. Baganha:
“Portuguese Emigration: Current Characteristics and Trends” (Portuguese Report
to COST A2 conference “Migration: Europe’s Integration and the Labor Force;’
Leuven, 1991); “As correntes emigratórias portuguesas no século
XX e o seu impacto na economia nacional” in Análise Social, 128
(39), 1994: 959-980; “Principais características e tendências da
emigração portuguesa” in Estruturas sociais e desenvolvimento:
actas do II Congresso Português de Sociologia (Lisbon: Fragmentos,
1994), 819-35; “The Market, the State, and the Migrants: Portuguese Emigration
Under the Corporative Regime” (Paper presented to the ESF Conference “Migration
and Development,” Crete, 1994).
[2] France, Office
Nationale d’Immigration (ONI) for the given years, in M. L. Marinho Antunes, “A
emigração portuguesa desde 1950: dados e comentários,” in Cadernos
GIS 7 (Lisbon: GIS, 1973),73,109.
[3] See Luís Miguel
Seruya, “Determinantes e características da emigração
portuguesa, 1960-1979,” in Perspectivas da emigração
portuguesa para a CEE, 1980-1990, ed. Heinz-Michael
Stahl et al. (Lisbon: Moraes Editores/I.E.D., 1982),
37-64; Mary M. Kritz, Charles B. Keely, and Silvano M. Tomasi, eds., Global
Trends in Migration: Theory and Research on International Population Movement,
3d ed. (Staten Island, N. Y.: Center for
Migration Studies, 1983); W. R. Bohning, Studies in International Labour
Migration (London: Macmillan, 1984); Jorge P. Branco, A estrutura da
comunidade portuguesa em França (Porto: Secretaria de Estado das
Comunidades Portuguesas/Centro de Estudos, 1986).
[4] In the early
1980s, for example, the portion of unskilled workers was 45 percent among the
Portuguese immigrant labor force in France, similar to other foreign groups but
much higher than among natives. The share of unskilled laborers in the French
active population was 29 percent. Branco, A estrutura,
70-71.
[5] 5. F. G. Cassola
Ribeiro, Emigração portuguesa. Aspectos relevantes relativos
às políticas adoptadas no domínio da
emigração portuguesa, desde a última guerra mundial.
Contribuição para o seu estudo (Porto: Secretaria de Estado
das Comunidades Portuguesas/Centro de Estudos, 1986), 41-42.
[6] Proposta de lei sobre
política de emigração, in Actas da Câmara
Corporativa 142 (February 23, 1973). See also Ribeiro, Emigração
portuguesa, 95-110.
[7] The figure does
not include the 105,000 special legalizations performed by the Emigration Bureau
between 1963 and 1969. See Antunes, “A
emigração portuguesa,” 13-15.
[8] The estimate
includes 975,000 arrivals to France and 212,000 arrivals to Germany, respectively.
[9] Some 777,000
arrivals to France and Germany are not accounted for in the Portuguese official
statistics. More specifically, comparing the French and Portuguese sources
indicates that for the period 1960-69, 48 percent of emigration to France went
unregistered by Portuguese sources, and 81 percent for 1970-79. For Germany,
the Portuguese migratory flow is unregistered by 27 percent for 1962-69 and by
42 percent in 1970-79 (see Table 10.6). Previous works considered only illegal
emigration to France. The totals are therefore different from the ones
presented in this paper. See, e.g., J. C.
Ferreira de Almeida, “A emigração portuguesa para a
França: alguns aspectos quantitativos,” Análise Social 2:
7/8 (1964), 599-622; M. L. Marinho Antunes, “Migrações,
mobilidade social e identidade cultural: factos e hipóteses sobre o caso
português,” ibid. 19: 65 ( 1981 ), 17-37; Stahl, Perspectivas da
emigração.
[10] The last annual
Boletim available from the Secretaria de Estado das Comunidades Portuguesas
is for 1988.
[11] See William S.
Bernard, “History of U.S. Immigration Policy,” in Immigration, by R.
Easterlin et al. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982), 103.
[12] France, Office
Nationale d’Immigration, quoted by Seruya, “Determinantes e características,”
52; and OECD, SOPEMI Reports, 1985, 1988, and 1990 (Paris: OECD).
[13] Caroline
Brettell, Men Who Migrate, Women Who Wait: Population and History in a Portuguese
Parish (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).
[14] Ibid., 68.
[15] The most relevant
works are Manuela Silva et al., Retorno, emigração e
desenvolvimento regional em Portugal (Lisbon: Instituto de Estudos para o
Desenvolvimento, 1984); Eduardo S. Ferreira, Reintegração dos
emigrantes portugueses: integração na CEE e desenvolvimento
económico (Lisbon: CEDEP/AE ISE), 1984; Amadeu Paiva, Portugal e
a Europa. O fim de um ciclo migratório (Lisbon: IED-CEDEP,
1985); Michel Poinard, “Emigrantes portugueses: o regresso,” Análise
Social 19:75 (1983), 29-56.
[16] After the
mid-1980s, the information available points to a decrease in the level of
returns. At the end of the decade, returns were between 25,000 and 26,000.
[17] Poinard’s
study, “Emigrantes portugueses: o regresso,” based on 3,792 documents and files
on Portuguese processes for aid return presented to French authorities in 1978,
gives a slightly different portrait of the migrants returning from France. The
mean duration of the stay in France was 9.5 years.
[18] Employment was
quite different in France and Germany. In France, 49 percent of the returnees
worked in construction and 25 percent in manufacturing; in Germany, 13 percent
worked in construction and 60 percent in manufacturing.
[19] The most
frequent reasons for return were missing the family and native land and concern
with the children’s education, 35 percent; and health, retirement, and labor
accidents, 26 percent.
[20] See SECP, Boletim
anual 1988: 83. For returns see Silva, Retorno, emigração
e desenvolvimento, 49-52; Stahl, Perspectivas da emigrção,
17.
[21] Alfredo M. Pereira,
“Trade-Off Between Emigration and Remittances in the Portuguese Economy,”
Faculdade de Economia – Universidade Nova de Lisboa Working Paper 129, 1989.
[22] A. Sedas Nunes,
“Portugal: sociedade dualista em evolução,” Análise
Social 2: 7/8 (1964), 407-62; Carlos Almeida and António Barreto, Capitalismo
e emigração em Portugal, 3d ed. (Lisbon: Prelo, 1976); Joel
Serrão, A emigração portuguesa: sondagem
histórica, 3d ed. (Lisbon: Livros Horizonte, 1977; Vitorino
Magalhães Godinho, A estrutura da antiga sociedade portuguesa (Lisbon:
Arcádia, 1978).
[23] Eduardo S. Ferreira, Origens
e formas da emigração (Lisbon: Iniciativas Editoriais, 1976);
José P. Barosa and Pedro T. Pereira, “Economic Integration and Labour
Flows: The European Single Act and Its Consequences”’ FE-UNL Working Paper 123,
1988; A. M. Pereira, “Trade-Off Between Emigration and Remittances.”
[24] Barosa and
Pereira, “Economic Integration and Labour Flows,” 8.
[25] Stahl, Perspectivas
da emigração; I. J. Seccombe and R. J. Lawless, “Some New
Trends in Mediterranean Labour Migration: The Middle East Connection” International
Migration 23:1 (1985), 123-48; Barosa and Pereira, “Economic Integration
and Labour Flows.”
[26] Barosa and
Pereira, “Economic Integration and Labour Flows,” 13.
[27] Amadeu Paiva, Portugal
e a Europa. O fim de um ciclo migratório (Lisbon: IED-CEDEP,
1985).
[28] See the
publications by Baganha cited in note I; and Baganha and João Peixoto,
“Trends in the ‘90s: The Portuguese Migratory Experience” in, Immigration
in Southern Europe Maria I. Baganha (ed.), Oieras, Celta, 1997:15-40.
|