Which transition comes first? Urban and demographic transitions in Belgium and Sweden

Abstract

(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)1. IntroductionAnalysing demographic transition is a recurrent task in demography. Although it is regrettable that demographic transition is insufficiently scrutinised, and that no sufficient historical data are available for this purpose, a number of recent contributions have attempted to re-examine demographic transition theory and to confront it with historical evidence (Christiaensen, Gindelsky, and Jedwab 2013; Henderson, Roberts, and Storeygard 2013; Lee and Reher 2011; Lerch 2014). The present paper is a follow-up to these contributions and in particular to the attempt of Tim Dyson, following that of Jan de Vries, to link demographic transition and urbanisation in a comprehensive theory (de Vries 1990; Dyson 2011). The first section of the present paper is not an attempt at exhaustively reviewing the theoretical literature on the subject, but revisits the theory linking demographic and urban transitions, essentially using three milestones established by Wilbur Zelinsky (1971), Jan de Vries (1984, 1990), and Sean Fox (2012). The second section examines the components of urban-rural growth difference. It offers an alternative to Dyson's analysis on Sweden and adds new data on Belgium to the debate. Our analysis reconsiders the role of migration in urban transition for both Sweden and Belgium, accounting for the often-neglected effect of reclassifying spatial units from rural to urban. Theoretical considerations are then drawn on the relation between these transitions and economic development, with methodological consequences.2. Demographic transition and urban developmentWilbur Zelinsky, a trained geographer, was probably the first to have theorised the spatial dimension of the demographic transition. He established the importance of spatial analysis in his seminal study of the demographic transition (Zelinsky 1971: in this section all page numbers are in reference to his article, unless otherwise stated). Zelinsky considered demographic transition as a macro propagation that is at the same time temporal and spatial (he used the term 'diffusion', which refers nowadays to the micro through which ideas and attitudes are disseminated among individuals by means of social interaction). Several analogical terms 3 such as 'pandemic' or 'tumorous cells' are used to explain the propagation of new demographic behaviours across space. The author justifies his spatial approach by the conviction that spatial distribution has a specific meaning (geographical axiom), by the concept of spatial diffusion/propagation of human innovations (anthropological axiom), and by the principle of least effort (economic axiom) (pp. 219-221). His article posits that there are definite, patterned regularities in the growth of personal mobility through space-time during recent history [Zelinsky refers implicitly to the 20th century], and these regularities comprise an essential component of the modernization process (pp. 221- 222).The insistence on the role of spatial mobility, which was new at the time, and the use of the term 'mobility transition' in the title is the origin of a frequent misunderstanding of Zelinsky's work. His paper is not just about migration. His main point is that mobility is embedded in, and not just parallel to, demographic transition. Zelinsky prefers 'vital transition' to name the conventional perspective that considers only fertility and mortality as the components of demographic transition. Demographic transition a la Zelinsky is in fact the integration of 'vital transition' and 'mobility transition' in an all-inclusive acceptance. It is actually abusing the term 'demographic transition' to refer to fertility and mortality transitions only. As Daniel Courgeau and Robert Franck remind us (2007), demography is the study of the combinations of fertility, mortality, and migration that explain population growth, decline, or stabilization. …