La forme est le fond la structuration des appareils statistiques nationaux (1800–1945)

The present paper surveys the discussions conducted by official statisticians regarding the ideal structure according to which a national data collection system should have been designed if it was to meet the challenges put up by the various transformation Western countries have undergone since the beginning of the 19th century. Arguments in favour of coordination, centralization, or decentralization have emerged for the first time in 1832 Britain, when the Statistical Bureau of the Board of Trade was created. Up to 1945, this debate went on, the industrial take-off, the economic crises, and the world wars all being occasions for its protagonists to put forward their preferred view. The perspective we take here is original in two respects: on the one hand, instead of confining ourselves to the major statistical systems (those of France, Britain, and the USA), we intend to evoke a large number of cases and, from this comparative standpoint, propose a general account of the drive towards centralization; on the other hand, instead of restraining our-selves to the 19th century, we cover the entire time-frame extending from 1800 to 1945.     

The assumption of equilibrium in models of migration

In recent articles Evans (1990) and Harrigan and McGregor (1993) (hereafter HM) scrutinized the equilibrium model of migration presented in a 1989 paper by Schachter and Althaus. This model used standard microeconomics to analyze gross interregional migration flows based on the assumption that gross flows are in approximate equilibrium. HM criticized the model as theoretically untenable, while Evans summoned empirical as well as theoretical objections. HM claimed that equilibrium of gross migration flows could be ruled out on theoretical grounds. They argued that the absence of net migration requires that either all regions have equal populations or that unsustainable regional migration propensities must obtain. In fact some moves are inter- and other are intraregional. It does not follow, however, that the number of interregional migrants will be larger for the more populous region. Alternatively, a country could be divided into a large number of small regions that have equal populations. With uniform propensities to move, each of these analytical regions would experience in equilibrium zero net migration. Hence, the condition that net migration equal zero is entirely consistent with unequal distributions of population across regions. The criticisms of Evans were based both on flawed reasoning and on misinterpretation of the results of a number of econometric studies. His reasoning assumed that the existence of demand shifts as found by Goldfarb and Yezer (1987) and Topel (1986) invalidated the equilibrium model. The equilibrium never really obtains exactly, but economic modeling of migration properly begins with a simple equilibrium model of the system. A careful reading of the papers Evans cited in support of his position showed that in fact they affirmed rather than denied the appropriateness of equilibrium modeling. Zero net migration together with nonzero gross migration are not theoretically incompatible with regional heterogeneity of population, wages, or amenities.