ARGENTINA
AS AN IMMIGRATION
Dr. Juan F. Marsal
Doctor of Law and graduate
in Political Sciences. Profes-
sor of Sociology at the
Free Institute of Humanities
of Rosario and Member of
the Argentine Sociological
Society. Author of various
publications in the field of
social sciences. At the pre-
sent time on exclusive scholar-
ship by the Argentine Nation-
al Council of Scientific Re-
search for the purpose of
carrying out studies on im-
migration.
COUNTRY
by Juan F. MARSAL
THE ZONES OF LATINAMERICA
AND THE SPECIAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RIVERPLATEAREA
THE habit of considering Latin America as one
entity has given rise to a number of misconceptions,
particularly in the field covered by this article. Thus,
Carr-Saunder’s estimate that only 38 per cent of
the population of Central and South America is of
European origin definitely does not apply to the
southern triangle of the Continent. It is equally
mistaken to class immigration in the River Plate
zone with Brazilian immigration, as the “ colonial
type ”, for Argentina and Uruguay are predominantly
urban, while Brazil, on the contrary, is the most
distinctively rural country in South America. Such
errors are, of course, supported by the surprising
lack of reliable publications and studies on migration
in the River Plate zone.
Latin America is so diverse that it only becomes
intelligible when divided up into different zones.
The conception of Latin America as a whole, as
Germani pointed out *, only applies to its social
and cultural characteristics as compared with other
regions of the world and, in particular, to its common
M. Carr-Saunders : “ Poblacibn mundial”, Sp. ed. Mexi-
co 1939, pp. 49-50.
2 “ Desarrollo y estado actual de la sociologia latinoameri-
cana ”, Buenos Aires, 1959.
17
origin and the “existence of feelings of kinship and community based on such
common features ”. This author gives an outline of the Latin-American “ sub-
regions ” based on four variable factors : ethnic origin, urbanization, industriali-
zation and class structure.
On the basis of those factors, and certain others, the River Plate sub-region or
zone (Argentina and Uruguay) is clearly distinguishable from the remainder of
the area. 95 per cent of the population is of recent European origin, two-thirds
of the people live in urban areas; they are in the forefront of the industrialization
of the whole region, and there is a large middle class. This is apparent from
Table I of population percentages employed in the more industrialized occupations
(tertiary and secondary occupations, plus higher echelons of primary occupations)
in Latin America in 1950.l

Table I

Order Country Percentage

1 Argentina 80.9
2 Chile 71.1
3 Venezuela 62.6
4 Cuba (59.4)
5 Costa Rica 53.6
6 Colombia 53.4
7 Ecuador 48.9
8 Paraguay 47.1
9 Panama 46.5
10 Brazil 39.5
11 Mexico 39.3
12 Guatemala 39.1
13 El Salvador 37.4
14 Nicaragua (31.6)
15 Bolivia 27.4
16 Honduras 16.9
17 Haiti 15.4

Further, it must be noted that while trends since Independence have been
widely divergent, today, on the contrary, there are currents common to the whole
region and the process of urbanization, industrialization and social development
is generalized throughout Latin America, although in a very different degree and
starting from very different points. This is clear from the above table.
Demographically, the River Plate sub-region differs even more, as while the
whole of Central and South America, together with a number of African and Asian

Figures quoted by K. H. Silvert in “ El nacionalismo en America Latina ” (Cuademos No. 50,

Paris 1961) referred to the study being prepared by Gin0 Germani on “ La estructura socio-ocupa-
cional de America Latina segtin el censo de las Americas’I.

18
countries, falls into the “ high fertility and high mortality ” group, Argentina and
Uruguay (on which there are very few data) are in the higher group of countries
with “ low fertility and mortality ”, along with the European countries, Australia,
New Zealand, the European population of the Republic of South Africa, and Japan.l
This is in direct relation to the level of urbanization and industrialization.
But where common ideologies, values and historical traditions play an important
role, as in the case of the political system, the River Plate singularity becomes less
marked and its characteristics more closely approach those of the whole region.2
This outstanding peculiarity of the River Plate area is a direct consequence of
what historians call “ the migratory alluvium ”. If we c o n h e ourselves to Argentina,
as is our intention in this study, it can be seen that the waves of migrants changed
Creole Argentina into the “ alluvial Argentina ” of modern times, which is a “ Creole-
migration conglomeration ”, to use the terminology of JosC Luis Romero. A new
type of society has been born and the outlines of a new human type can even be
discerned.
The phenomenon is similar to that apparent in other great overseas migrations
and, in particular, in the case of the United States. At the beginning of the century,
there existed in Europe the very general conviction that Argentine development
would be similar to that of the immigration country of the North, as was hoped by
students of the Argentine demographic transformation, like Sarmiento who said,
at that time, that “ when the South reflects the North, we shall be enlightened.” It is
not rare to find, from the biographies of European families who migrated to the
South at the beginning of the century that, while some of their members chose
New York as their destination, others chose Buenos Aires. The fact that this
parallelism has disappeared has nothing to do with the similarity of the phenomenon
in its origins, i.e. a European migration current, but is due to other special cir-
cumstances-the structure of the original River Plate community and its ideology,
and the structure of the migration itself, as can be seen clearly from the following
section.
Immigration to Latin America was of decisive influence only in the River Plate
area, as only there was it a determining transformation factor.
River Plate immigration was of the same type as that of the United States,
Australia or Canada, and not of the “ colonial type ” (intermediary between the

United Nations : “ Informe sobre la situacibn social del mundo ”, (Report on the World
Economic Situation), New York 1957, p. 20 et seq.
Lipset has made a classification of the Latin American countries on the basis of “ degree
of democratic stability ”. According to this, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Mexico and Uruguay belong to a first group of “unstable democracies and dictatorships”; all
the others belong to a second group of “ stable dictatorships ”, i.e. Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay,
Peru and Venezuela.

19
former and intra-European agricultural migration), as it is incorrectly termed by
Eisenstadt in his bibliography on Brazil. In the latter, the second great reception
country for immigrants in South America, integration has taken a quite different
form.

Buenos Aires: General View and, in the distant perspective, the National Parliament.
(Photo Argentine Chamber of Commerce, Gene\ a).

20
 THE CASE OF ARGENTINA~

Let us now try to summarize the main features of Argentine immigration as

distinguished from similar cases.
First, migration to Argentina was planned by the distinguished Creole minority
in Argentina and by politicians who, after the fall of Juan Manuel de Rosas' dictator-
ship in 1852, laid the foundation of the modern Argentine Republic. For the intel-
lectuals who were members of this minority, the objective was an " intrinsic Ienova-
tion " of the population of the country, above all in the qualitative sense so that,
in this way, Argentina might take its place in the progressive and liberal world of
western bourgeoisie then so flourishing. Juan Bautista Alberdi, author of the
phrase " to govern is to populate ", who was one of the most prominent members
of the so-called Argentine intellectual generation of 1837, explained in his well
known book " Lost Bases " what he meant by this phrase : " ...if civilization is to
be achieved through population, it is necessary to populate with civilized peoples ;
to implant liberty and industry on our continent, we must populate it with people
from that part of Europe which is most advanced in liberty and in industry, as is
happening in the United States ".
It was therefore a matter of " intrinsic renovation " of the population of the
country, " artificially " planned, not " spontaneous immigration " of " unwanted
populations ", which brought with it all the accompanying dangers foreseen by
Alberdi, such as the concentration of immigrants in the ports.
But to counteract this intellectual trend towards " scientific ", selective immi-
gration, there was the other form of immigration from economic motives-spon-
taneous mass immigration to provide the manpower lacking in the underpopulated
country. To that can be attributed the country's vertiginous economic upsurge
at the end of the century, based on the increase in its agricultural and livestock
production. Thus, at the session of the Senate on 24 September 1870, President
Mitre, one of the main supporters of mass immigration, referring to his work in the
government, could boast that " I began with 6,000 immigrants and, at the end of
six years, I left the country with 30,000 immigrants per year ".
It was only the beginning of the avalanche, for the second characteristic of
Argentine immigration is its exceptional size, which is apparent, not from absolute
figures, though they are considerable in themselves, but in relation to the whole

In this connexion, we have based ourselves mainly on the works of Alejandro E. Buge '' Sesenta
aiios de Inmigraci6n " and " Ochanta aiios de Inmigraci6n ",published in the " Revista de Economia
Argentina " (1928 and 1944) and in his study " Una nueva Argentina " (Buenos Aires, 1940); and
on the more recent works of Gin0 Germani " Estructura social de la Argentina " (Buenos Aires,
1955) and " La asimilaci6n de 10s inmigrantes en la Argentina y el fknomeno del regreso de la inmi-
graci6n reciente " (Buenos Aires, 1959) roneographed edition. There is also a later printed edition.

21
country. The proportion of foreigners can be seen from Table 11, (70 per cent of
them are established in the Capital city). The role of immigration is even more
obvious if it is remembered that the majority of migrants were economically active
and that immigration accounts for 35 per cent of the total growth of the country.

Table II

TOTAL POPULATION AND NUMBER OF FOREIGNERS

PER 100 INHABITANTS. 1869-1960(I

Total Foreigners
Population
l

1869 (I Census) 1,737 12.1

1895 (I1 Census) 3,955 25.5
1914 (111 Census) 7,885 30.3
1920 (estim.) 8,754 24.0
1930 (estim.) 11,746 23.5
1940 (estim.) 14,055 18.4
1947 (IV Census) 15,894 15.3
1950 (estim.) 16,961 15.7
1960 (V Census) 20,088 12.8

(I Source : G. Germani :“la asimilaciBnde 10s inmigrantes. . . ”,

op. cit.

As Table I1 shows, the population of Argentina, which was 1,700,000

in 1869, had increased almost twelve times by 1959. Three immigration periods
can be distinguished : a first period of growth, (interrupted only by the First World
War), which ended in 1930; a second period of further increase (1947-1951), and the
present period with modest figures.
But, as Alberdi feared, although not for the reasons he had in mind, there has
been extraordinary geographical (regional and urban), demographic and social
concentration.
Population as well as wealth is concentrated unreasonably in an area of the
country which forms only one-fifth of the national territory. In 1940, Alejandro
Bunge (Graph 1) pointed out the gravity of this lack of balance, enjoyed by one small
primary zone to the detriment of two other more distant areas. On account of this
unequal distribution, he called Argentina a “ fan country ”.
The figures of the 1960 Census (V) included in Table 11, are provisional
and it is therefore premature to make any detailed comments on them. There is
no doubt, however, that as far as is known already, the trends apparent from the
previous census in 1947 (declining percentage of foreigners, falling birth-rate, rural
exodus, etc.) are even more marked.

22
 Patagonia: Landscape.

But the process of concentration is not only geographical and limited to certain
zones of the country, but also urban. According to its first census in 1869, Argentina
had 28 per cent urban population and, according to its last in 1947, this had risen to
62 per cent. From being a rural country it had become predominantly urban
(Graph 2). Even more striking is the fact that almost one-third of the population of
the country is concentrated in the area known as Greater Buenos Aires, around the
gigantic urban centre which forms the political capital. This phenomenon of
“ urban agglomeration ” around the political capital of the country is typical of the

present phase of development of the Latin-American nations (with the exception

of Brazil and Colombia, where urbanization is taking place around two or more
cities), but only in the more Southern States does it exceed 20 per cent of the total
population (Chile 22.7 per cent, Argentina 29.4 per cent, Uruguay 44.0 per cent).
It is not surprising that the “ macrocephalism ” of Buenos Aires has given rise to an
abundant para-sociological literature which either analyses, or only describes. the
problem of the Argentine capital as the country’s number one problem.
What is of more interest to us here is that this marked centralization evident in
the River Plate area is a direct consequence of the impact of migration, and of the
urban tastes of the migrants, although this was aggravated by other factors such as

23
the land tenure system, which will be dealt with later. From table 111, it can be
seen that the foreign immigrants tended to settle in the towns or even in the ports,
where the percentage in the Buenos Aires zone was even higher than that of natives.
This centripetal trend towards the capital continued in the internal migration which.
after 1930, replaced external migration in size and importance, increasing still further
the uneven geographical distribution of the Argentine population.

Table 111

FOREIGNERS RESIDENT IN THREE ZONES OF THE COUNTRY,

FOR EACH 100 FOREIbNERS. 1869-1957a

7 Years

1869

1895
1914
Buenos
zone

48
39
41
mrdoba Prov.
B
u
?
&
:=
,
Mendoza
Sta. Fe, Pampa

42
52
49
of the
Reminder
country

10
9
10
1947 44 42 14
1957 47 - -

a Source : G . Germani, op. cit.

There is, in addition, a third and no less important aspect of the concentration
of immigrants in Argentina : the demographic concentration of ages and sexes.
During the 1860-1930 period immigrants accounted for almost half of the adult and
economically active population of Buenos Aires, a result due for the most part to
the high proportion of males among adult immigrants (80 per cent in the capital)
at a time when women had not yet been fully incorporated into community life.
For half a century " Argentina was literally a country of immigrants of the first or
second generation ". The fact that mass immigration was mainly composed of
adult males had a far-reaching effect on assimilation, as it led to a high percentage of
mixed marriages.
Immigration to Argentina, added to the previous concentrations of population,
had another far-reaching effect : the concentration of European migration in certain
social strata and in specific occupations, The newcomers worked mainly in industry
and commerce (in times of peak immigration, some 70 or 80 per cent) and, in a
smaller proportion, in primary occupations or agriculture and cattle breeding, as
can be seen from table IV.
In Argentina, and even less in the rest of Latin America, there was nothing
comparable to the rush to the virgin lands which led to the development of the interior

24
of the United States. In part, as had already been pointed out, this was due to
the motives of the migrants themselves, whose inclination, as in internal migration
in their countries of origin, was to move from the country to the city; further, those
who tried to settle in the countryside were faced with an unfavourable fiscal and land
tenure system. Only a very small proportion of immigrant farmers became land
owners and even the more fortunate never became more than tenants. The main
difficulty in settling the immigrant on the land-according to one of the contemporary
works on this problem-is the appropriation of the whole of the grain-producing
area by big land-owners who opposed by every possible means the breaking-up and
alienation of the land, and came to regard it to some extent as an object of specula-
tion, basing their profits on the higher value which the railways and the increase in
the population will inevitably bring, rather than on the land's actual output or pro-
ductivity I.'

Table ZV

FOREIGNERS IN PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND TERTIARY OCCUPATIONS,

FOR EACH 100 PERSONS TOTALLY EMPLOYED IN EACH OF THEM,
ACCORDING TO THE 1914 CENSUS^

I Occupations I 1914

Active Population . ..
a Source : G. Germani, op. cit.

The problem was not simple and its origins were deeply rooted; in reality they
lay in the urgent economic needs of the governments of the nineteenth century to
meet public expenditure or colonization plans which were hampered by persons who
practised a kind of " mock colonization " in order to rent land.2 The problem was
complicated by other factors, such as the lack of transport in rural areas, the sudden
increase in land values, the spread of extensive farming and the relegation principally
to cattle-breeding of the former Creole population. In spite of all this, the activity

Damian Torino : " El problema del inmigrante y el problem agrario en la Argentina "
(Buenos Aires, 1912), p. 57.
Jacinto Oddone : '' La Burguesia terrateniente argentina " (Buenos Aires, 1936), mentions
333 persons who, in accordance with the law of 15 October 1857, rented a total of 1221 leagues
(equal to 3,296,700 hectares) among whom only 40 had foreign names.

25
of the immigration agricultural minority was particularly fruitful in the introduction
of new farming methods and techniques.
Nevertheless, the difficulty of access to the land was not prohibitive and there
were zones of the country (the most fertile) where, through official action as in Entre
Rios, or through private benefactors, as in Santa Fe and the river area of the province
of Buenos Aires, there grew up wealthy and flourishing colonies which were an
example of efficiency and successful land settlement. These “ colonies ” of immi-
grants, some of which were composed of foreigners who did not speak a Latin
language, were rather the exception and their difficulties of assimilation and special
problems were exactly those of the “colonial type”. Today they form part of history.
So, because of the motives of Southern European migrants and the structure
of the absorbing society, mass immigration to Argentina was concentrated on new
and expanding secondary and tertiary occupations, and led to the formation of the
new urban middle classes and the industrial proletariat. Their great class density
gave rise to the formation of numerous “ associations ” of the various immigrant
nationalities which, at the start, seemed a threat to the integrity of the host country
but which, later, as has happened in similar cases, became a main channel of
absorption.

Vine-growing in Mendoza.

26
 Mass European migration to Argentina was composed in overwheImingmajority
of Italians and Spaniards (Graph 3). These two nationalities accounted for almost
80 per cent of the total. The rest were divided between various nationalities. Except
in the period following the Second World War, when the percentage of other nation-
alities increased, the Italo-Spanish component of European migration to Argentina
remained constant. That facilitated the integration of the influx of migrants, a
favourable result not at first foreseen by those who encouraged the mass immigration
of manpower. The new population of Italo-Spanish immigrants had considerable
ethnic and cultural affinity with what anthropologists have called the Spanish-Creole
“ basic stock ” in the native population-Spanish immigrants because of their
ethnic and cultural ties with one of the components of the basic stock, and Italian
because they belong to the same Mediterranean type and to the same language gr0up.l
As we have seen, the immense majority of migrants were peasants : practical
men with basic traditional values and strong religious beliefs. The Catholic religion
predominates in Argentina and was the religion of the Spanish-Creole population.
It is easy to understand the fusion which this has brought about, as the immigrants
were 86 per cent Catholic and at its most critical point this percentage fell only to
74.1 per cent in 1941. Other signs of hornogeneitycan be seen in the studies on the
height of the male population of military age. In 1891, for example, when immigration
was at its peak, a soldier’s average height was 165.7 cm. and, at the same period,
the average height of the male population in Spain was 163.5 cm. and, in Italy,
164.5 cm. The process of assimilation was assisted by the increased growth of
the Spanish-Creole population in the interior, and by migration from the neigh-
bouring American states (clandestine, for the most part) about which, until recent
years, there was very little data.
Finally, another characteristic, very favourable of course to Argentine immigra-
tion, was the normal goodwill of the absorbing community towards the immigrant
population : the absence of discriminatory practices. This attitude on the part of
Argentine nationals was closely related to the liberal ideas of the founders of the
nation, to the linguistic and cultural ties with the majority of the immigrants, and
to other politico-social factors but, in any event, problems which normally give rise
to discriminatory practices were avoided. The main one is the grouping of those
discriminated against around employers of their own culture, from which advanced

It must not be forgotten-although that is frequently the case-that within Spanish migration
itself there are linguistic differences as great as those between Castilian and Italian. In particular,
(Basque being a different problem) the case of immigrants who speak Gallegan and those from the
Catalan-Valencian-Balearicgroup should be noted. No members of those groups have had lin-
guistic difficulties. Lago Carballo, in an article which summarizes the evolution of Spanish emigra-
tion in Argentina, has also noted that “ as compared with Spanish migration in general, integration
does not present ;ny serious problem in Argentina ”. (“ Spanish immigration in Argentina ”,
“Migration News , No. 3 , Geneva 1960).

27
immigrant communities, in the United States or Australia and societies ,of the
“ colonial ” type as in Brazil, have suffered so much. If there has been some slight
isolation of immigrant groups, it was rather in the higher strata, united in withholding,
for a time at least, certain sources of wealth.
As far as can be seen, Argentina has entered a new phase of its history charac-
terized by a “ growing national homogeneity ”. The majority of the population
have Argentine parents or at least one parent born in Argentina, as can be seen
from Graph 4.
This is due to various reasons, some national and other international; in the
first place there was the successful and rapid process of absorption of the fifty-year
migratory “ alluvium ”, from 1870 to 1930; but many other factors helped in the
integration of the migrants : their mainly urban character, their localization in
occupations (industry and commerce) of greater vertical mobility, the higher per-
centage of male immigrants (and therefore a high percentage of mixed marriages),
the ethnic and linguistic affinity. To those may be added the features common to
overseas migration, in particular the favourable influence of distance from the country
of origin. While some evils may have resulted from mass immigration, they were
not those of non-assimilation or isolation.
It does not seem quite correct to speak of the failure of migration to Argentina
on the basis of the high percentage of returns (approximately 47 per cent).l Very
little, almost nothing, is known about returns or re-migration, and that little is drawn
from rather inaccurate and sometimes contradictory statistics.2 We are still in
the field of hypothesis. For example, it must be established whether there is an
“ attitude of return ” common to all European Mediterranean migrants or only pecu-

liar to people from certain countries. Bunge seemed to hint at this in relation to
Italian emigration, where he thought he saw a greater propensity for re-migration
as compared with other national groups, Another point to be clarified is whether
the trend is only recent or whether it is endemic.S
Argentina, it is obvious, has entered a new period of its demographic develop-
ment. In 1930, European immigration, after decreasing throughout the previous
decade, completely ceased.

According to Bunge, from 1857 to 1941, 6,611,027 migrants entered Argentina and 3,138,075
left. The balance was therefore 3,472,952 immigrants.
Reference is made, for example, to the figures concerning recent returns givefi by Gino Ger-
mani in his much-quoted study “ De la asimilacibn de 10s inmigrantes en la Argentina y el fenbmeno
del regreso de la inmigracibn reciente ” and those of the ILO in ‘‘ International Migration, 1945 to
1957 ” (Geneva, 1959), Tables 22 and 82-83 respectively.
An investigation is at present being made into the return of Spanish migrants from the
Argentine coast, from which it is expected to obtain some clarification.

28
 From 1942 there was a rise in the birth-rate which belied Bunge’s pessimistic
predictions in 1940 and this further assisted in establishing national homogeneity.
Internal migration from the provinces in the interior to the urban-industrial zones
of the coast and of Buenos Aires replaced European migration. Argentine industrial-
ization was also attracting more and more immigrants from the neighbouring
American states, as can be seen from Table V :

Table V

ARGENTINA : IMMIGRATION AND EMIGRATION OF NATIONALS FROM OTHER

SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTRIES, BY NATIONALITY (1946-1957)a
(in thousands)

Years Bolivians Brazilians Chileans ?araguayans Uruguayans

1946 0.4 1.8 0.7 0.6 -10.1 0.4 -6.1

1947 0.1 0.5 2.6 3.0 -6.4 0.3 0.1
1948 0.4 0.9 2.3 6.4 -11.6 0.7 4 . 9
1949 0.1 0.8 2.7 4.2 -2.0 0.1 6.0
1950 1.6 1.6 5.4 6.9 12.3 0.9 28.8
1951 0.8 3.6 6.4 9.5 7.6 2.5 30.5
1952 0.8 3.1 1.6 10.0 -8.9 1.4 7.9
1953 1.7 0.1 3.3 7.1 -1.0 0.7 11.8
1954 1.7 1.1 6.8 7.5 -1.1 0.7 16.7
1955 26.5 4 . 2 6.1 9.6 -3.9 ? 38.1
1956 -1.6 1.4 8.7 25.5 1.7 ? 35.7
1957 2.7 1.o 4.0 22.7 12.1 ? 42.5

Total 35.4 15.7 50.6 I 113.0 -11.3 7.7 I 211.1

a Source : ILO, op. cit.

It may be observed that the increase in the totals of Table V occurred

when European migration showed a downward trend. Yet, total immigration
from other American countries-and, in view of the amount of checked immigration
(an additional 50 per cent has been mentioned), this is probably much higher-is
still approximately one-third of immigration from Europe in the same period.
As we said before, the Latin American region has entered a period of rather
intense intra-continental migration and there does not seem to be any immediate
possibility of a large increase in intercontinental spontaneous migration. Rather
the contrary. It is even possible that European migration to Argentina will
remain at a modest level. From 1946 to 1957, total immigration did not exceed
600,000, a small figure for a country of 20,000,000 inhabitants.
In any case, it must be pointed out that, in the case of Argentina, difficulties in
increasing the intake of European immigrants do not lie in any psychological attitude

29
 Migrants arriving in Rosario Harbour.

on the part of the population (according to all indications, it is one of the. most
favourable reception countries) but in the capacity for economic absorption which
is so closely linked with the world economic situation.
Further, the provisional results of the 1960 Census have given rise to concern
about the so-called " premature Argentine ageing ". The fall in the birth-rate
(compensated by the corresponding phenomenon in mortality) is obvious; in 1910
it was 28.3 per thousand, in 1937 it dropped to 23 per thousand, in 1940 and 1950
it was about 25 per thousand and it has fallen progressively since then to about
20 per thousand in 1960. As Dagnino Pastore states, it " emphasizes the precarious-
ness of demographic growth ".l
Anxiety about the Argentine demographic situation has spread to government
circles which in the past looked towards immigration as a source of increase of the

Una Visidn de la Demografia in " Argentina, 1930 to 1960 ", Buenos Aires, 1961.

30
population and a stimulus for economic development. " It is more necessary than
ever-said the present Argentine Minister of Economy-that we should practice
a more enlightened immigration policy, and the reason is that our country is mature
and the populations of such countries do not grow by themselves but rather remain
stable or increase at a slow rate ".l
Whatever the future may hold in store for European migration to Argentina,
there is no doubt that, like the Spanish-Creole element, it has become an integral
part of the national structure which will influence the very future of Argentina.

Buenos Aires: the 9th of July Avenue-

the largest in the world-with its obelisk.
(Photo : Argentine Chamber of Commerce, Geneva).

Comments of the Minister of Economy, Roberto T. Alemann, in the round table discussion
of the newspaper " Clarin " on '' Poblaci6n y desarrollo econ6mico " (Buenos Aires, 17 Sept. 1961).

31
 Graph No. I
ARGENTINA
:A FAN-LIKE COUNTRY

Zone I : Territory 20°/0,population $7 %

economic capacity, base = 100
Zone II : Territory 40 O h , population 25 O h
economic capacity = 15
Zone Ill : Territory 40%, population 8 Oh
economic capacity = 9

Source : A. Bunge : (( Una nueva Argentina n

32
 Graph No. 2
URBAN
AND RURAL DISTRIBUTIONOF THE POPULATION, 1869-1947

% of Inhabitants

Years
1869
70 1895 70

1914
1947
6C 60

5E 50

4( 40

3( 30

PI 20

II 10

RURAL URBAN
1869 Argentina was a rural country
1947 Argentina is predominantly urban country

Source : G. Germani : (( Estructura social de la Argentinar

33
 Graph No. 3
ARGENTINA
NATIONALITY OF IMMIGRANTS 1857- 1958

Source : A. Bunge : uOchenta afios de inmigraci6n n

34
 Graph No. 4

yo of the Total

50

40

3(

2(

Natives, both Natives, one Natives, both Foreigners

parents parent only parents foreign
Argentinian Argentinian

Source : G. Germani : (( Estructura social de la Argentina,