Eugen von Philippovich, L'émigration européenne (1890)

Eugen von Philippovich’s French-language article examines overseas European migration through its historical development, destinations, institutional regulation, and economic consequences. It treats nineteenth-century emigration as a structural feature of economic development, challenging calculations that equate departures with a straightforward national loss. Its account also rests on a racialized conception of civilization: European settlement generates wealth and extends European influence while strengthening societies that may eventually diminish Europe’s relative power.

The historical opening contrasts migration driven by religious persecution, political oppression, and distress with the sustained mobility of the nineteenth century. Earlier emigration involved dangerous passages, exploitation, and dependence on employers. Shipboard conditions made the risks especially stark:

Par manque d'air, de nourriture fraîche et de propreté, les épidémies y éclataient et y enlevaient en masse les émigrants.

English translation: For want of air, of fresh food, and of cleanliness, epidemics broke out there and carried off the emigrants in masses.

These dangers establish the importance of later transport improvements and protective regulation. Industrial displacement and economic hardship supplied motives for departure, while cheaper travel, established migrant connections, and opportunities overseas made movement increasingly practicable. Philippovich estimates that departures since 1820 would substantially exceed twenty million by 1890, while acknowledging the inadequacy of migration statistics.

The comparison of destinations distinguishes organized recruitment from migration’s capacity to reproduce itself. The United States attracted migrants through economic opportunity, political and religious liberties, communications, and existing connections. Immigration and development reinforced one another, although commercial crises interrupted the movement.

Mais c'est l'émigration par sa force spontanée et le développement de la culture qu'elle favorise, qui sont les principales causes de son accroissement.

English translation: But it is emigration, by its spontaneous force and the development of cultivation which it fosters, that are the principal causes of its increase.

This emphasis on spontaneous expansion qualifies the importance of official inducements. Canada illustrates active recruitment and land concessions. Australia and New Zealand introduce Wakefield’s effort to coordinate land, labor, and capital through land pricing; financing passages from land sales survived the failure of colonization companies. Brazil supplies a darker example: parceria contracts could transform migrants’ transport debts into enduring dependence on plantation owners. The comparison measures promises of settlement against migrants’ actual conditions.

Philippovich distinguishes governments’ fluctuating attitudes toward departure from their growing responsibility to protect migrants. States might subsidize emigration, remove unwanted populations, or resist the loss of workers. Shipping rules, supervision of agents, and reliable information nevertheless offered a more consistent basis for intervention. Receiving countries also shaped migration through material assistance:

Les États où se porte l'émigration promulguent des lois protectrices en faveur des émigrants et contribuent aux faveurs qui leur sont accordées par des concessions de terres, des contributions aux frais de transport et autres facilités.

English translation: The states toward which emigration is directed promulgate protective laws in favour of the emigrants and add to the favours granted to them by concessions of land, contributions to the costs of transport, and other facilities.

Protection and assistance do not, however, guarantee successful organized colonization. Charitable initiatives and projects intended to preserve national communities overseas encountered difficulties in constructing institutions and directing settlers’ conduct. Government backing could sustain undertakings beyond the resources of private associations.

The article’s principal economic intervention rejects treating emigrants as an aggregate capital loss. Neither their upbringing costs nor estimates of their future surplus production establish the consequences for those who remain. Labor acquires economic value through concrete relations with land, capital, employment, and exchange; departures may therefore improve remaining workers’ opportunities. Continuing population growth, return migration, and immigration further complicate simple demographic subtraction. Philippovich favors local statistics and descriptive investigation, including attention to overseas commercial connections and returning migrants’ knowledge.

The conclusion explains migration through expectations of improvement rather than absolute destitution alone. Departures occur from prosperous as well as distressed societies, and easier return makes movement more experimental. Migration can narrow international differences in wages and land prices, although political resistance may obstruct this tendency. Ultimately, the article joins migrant protection to a relational analysis of economic consequences: emigration reorganizes opportunities across borders while creating overseas centers whose growing autonomy challenges European predominance.