Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
1910–1946
Penka Peykovska
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute for Historical Studies
ppykvsk@abv.bg
Urbanization is among the most important demographic phenomena of the modern
age. Today, half of the world’s population lives in cities, and by 2050 this share is
expected to reach 70 percent. Urbanization theorists see this as a consequence of
three mutually impacting processes: natural growth (population growth as a result of
birth rates exceeding mortality rates), migration (mainly from the villages to cities), and
reclassification (the administrative mechanism for giving urban status to former villages
or urban settlements) – whose relative contribution to the urbanization process varies
depending on the environment.
The processes of urbanization and internal migration in Bulgaria in 1910–1946 have not
often been made the subject of rigorous study, perhaps because the scale of urbanization
at the time was small and the pace slow compared to the period after World War II.
At the same time, however, the first half of this period was characterized by intensive
waves of refugees and immigrants (Bulgarians, Russians, and Armenians). Having in
mind the lack of attention which this question has been given in the secondary literature,
in this paper I examine the urbanization processes in Bulgaria at the time and the role
of migration to and within the country in these processes. In particular, I monitor the
significance of gender, nationality/“nationalité ethnique” in urbanization in Bulgaria and
the roles of smaller and larger cities and the capital, Sofia. I rely heavily on the five
censuses carried out between 1910 and 1946, which drew a distinction between localborn and non-indigenous populations, including people who had been born abroad. In
other words, the data contain information on native-born people (i.e. born in the locality
where they were enumerated or, as one might say “locals”), people who were enumerated
in a locality different from their birthplace within the country (i.e. internal migrants, inmigrants), and people who were foreign-born (i.e. external migrants, immigrants).
Concerning the role of migration to and within the country in the urbanization process
in Bulgaria, my quantitative analysis shows that urbanization in Bulgaria was influenced
by migration (mainly internal migration), partly by the waves of refugees and immigrants
during the war and in the interwar period, which accelerated the growth of cities. At
the same time, the urbanization of small towns was due primarily to immigration.
The trend towards urbanization (albeit at a slow pace) in Bulgaria was a result of the
migration of the predominantly ethnic Bulgarian population from villages to cities, but
the contribution of Armenian and Russian refugees was also notable.
Keywords: internal and external migration, immigration, in-migration, Bulgaria,
urbanization, towns, cities, ethnicity, sex, 1910–1946
http://www.hunghist.org
179
Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
Urbanization is among the most important demographic phenomena
underway today, when half of the world’s population lives in cities1 and the rapid
growth of urban agglomerations which are already huge is being blamed for a
number of negative phenomena (high levels of unemployment, infrastructural
tensions, and environmental degradation, for instance).2 The study of
urbanization as a historical process is increasingly pressing, since this process has
implications for the present day, given the need to find successful mechanisms
with which to address its negative effects.
Urbanization theorists see urbanization as a consequence of migration
together and in interaction with natural population growth (which occurs as a
result of birth rates exceeding mortality rates) and a process of reclassification
(the administrative mechanism for giving urban status to former villages or
surrounding settlements), the relative contribution to urbanization of which
depends on the economic and social background.3 Migration within the country
from rural to urban areas directly contributes to urbanization by causing a
decline in rural populations and growth in urban ones. Furthermore, some cities
attract significant numbers of immigrants from abroad, which also leads to an
increase in the urban population.4 A transition to urban lifestyles and settlement
patterns is also a consequence of economic modernization, industrialization,
and changes in the demographic makeup of the population.
In the period under examination here, Bulgaria experienced relatively rapid
demographic growth in spite of the Balkan Wars, First World War, and the
accompanying loss of life. This growth was due not simply to a common trend
in postwar population growth, but also to the immense inflow of refugees and
immigrants5 generated by armed conflicts beginning in the second decade of
the twentieth century, namely the Balkan Wars and World War I, not to mention
the 1917 revolution and civil war in Russia, the Aster Revolution in Hungary,
the Greek-Turkish war of 1919–1922, and subsequent events. By 1925, some
1 According to data for 2011. See: UN, 2014b. Accessed on March 2, 2018. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/10.1002/psp.2036/full
2 Bencivenga and Smith, “Unemployment, Migration and Growth,” 582–608; Bilsborrow, “Migration,
Population Change and the Rural Environment,” 69–94; Kavzoglu, “Determination of Environmental
Degradation,” 429–438.
3 White, International Handbook, 474–75.
4 Найденова, 3–15.
5 In this essay, I use the term “immigrant” to refer to people who came, as immigrants, to the country
from abroad. Similarly, the term “emigrant” refers to people who left the country. I use the term “inmigrant” to refer to people who migrated from one settlement to another within the country.
180
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
200,000 people had come into Bulgaria as immigrants. Most were of Bulgarian
ethnic origin, but there were also 20,000 Russians and 15,000 Armenians among
them. The population increased also because of higher birth rates in Bulgaria
following the first demographic transition.6 The country was rural, and four
fifths of its population were peasants. The majority of landowners had relatively
small holdings. Bulgaria had an agriculture-centered development strategy,
which, however, did not exclude industrialization. Economic modernization
happened in agriculture and livestock breeding, which accounted for half of the
GDP. The country crossed the threshold of industrialization in the late 1930s.7
Between 1926 and 1934, there were 97 rural towns (most of which were small)
with populations under 10,000 (Table 2). Sofia saw the highest growth rate.
Other rapidly-developing cities included Plovdiv, Varna, Burgas, and Ruse. The
proportion of the urban population rose by 5.6 percent between 1910 and 1946.
So, concerning the interrelated processes of internal migration, urbanization,
and industrialization, there was some development, but it was rather slow, which
explains why this development has been seen by some researchers more as
stagnation than as any kind of progress.
In this essay, I examine the role of migration in Bulgaria’s urbanization during
the period preceding accelerated industrialization. At that time, the importance
of internal migration and immigration in the numerical growth of urban
populations in Bulgaria increased – although immigration including refugees was
significantly smaller than in-migration, and it continued more intensively only
until 1926 (Table 3). (Here we would like to give a terminological clarification:
unlike in our era when the “refugee” and the “immigrant” are separate categories,8
in the examined period refugees were usually considered immigrants.) There was
a total of 217,328 in-migrants within the country in 1910 and 354,187 in 1926
(figures which greatly exceeded the number of immigrants into the country). So,
there were 59,706 immigrants in 1910 and 166,761 in 1926 (their relative share
in towns/cities was larger than in the villages). More than one third of the inmigrants and about half of the immigrants were predominantly directed to the
big towns and cities, i.e. settlements with populations over 10,000. According to
the data, in 1910, 89 percent of the immigrants (53,067 people) and 77 percent
6 Груев, Демографски тенденции, 369–70.
7 Kopsidis, “Was Gerschenkron wright?” 9, 17; Lampe and Jackson, Balkan Economic History, 576–77;
Ivanov, The Gross Domestic Product of Bulgaria, 105, 107; Teichova, “Industry,” 239.
8 For details see: The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. See also:
Long, “When refugees stopped being migrantsm”, 4–26.
181
Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
of the in-migrants (167,437 people) were encouraged to go to urban settlements,
and in 1926, their figures were 80 percent (129,214 people) of immigrants and
77.5 percent (282,079 people) of in-migrants. Until 1926, the general trend was
towards increases in the number of immigrants and in-migrants targeting the
towns/cities.
Table 1. Number of towns/cities in Bulgaria according to the classification used in the
population censuses, 1910–1946
Towns/cities with population
Up to 10,000 people
Above 10,000 people
Above 20,000 people
Above 50,000 people
Above 100,000 people
Total
1910
1920
1926
1934
1946
42
53
53
48
43
28
26
28
33
40
8
9
12
12
17
1
3
3
3
4
1
1
1
1
2
80
92
97
97
106
Earlier Findings, Data Sources, and Methods
Scholars have shown little interest in urbanization in Bulgaria and its interaction
with (internal and external) migration processes during the period under
examination. This may be the case in part because, at this initial stage (which
started with the founding of the Third Bulgarian State in 1878 and ended in the
late 1940s), the relative share of the urban population was growing slowly and
the urban way of life was spreading slowly.9 Faster-paced, dynamic urbanization
took place in the second half of the twentieth century. It accelerated under
centrally planned economic development, as a result of which urban populations
grew sharply. At the end of the 1960s, urban settlements accounted for more
than fifty percent of the population, which was increasingly concentrated in the
administrative centers.10
Some researchers on migratory and urbanization processes in Bulgaria
have claimed that after 1880 (up to 1934, for example) there was a “progressive
urbanization trend.” They have tended to support their theses with indicators
such as the steadily increasing number and the growing relative share of the
9 Младенов и Димитров, “Урбанизацията в България,” 13; Минков, Миграция на населението, 85;
Стефанов, Демография на България, 258–59.
10 Василева, Миграционни процеси в България, 94; Марчева, “Социални измерения на урбанизацията”
127; Марчева, Политиката за стопанска модернизация, 396–97.
182
urban population.11 Other authors have contended that migration growth (i.e. the
difference between the in-migrants and out-migrants, calculated on the basis of
population censuses, which are, however, rather “rough” measurements) should
be understood as an indicator of urbanization processes in Bulgaria.12 They have
found that migration growth is always to the benefit of towns and cities. It leads
to rises in the urban population and drops in rural populations.13 In the case of
Bulgaria, the phenomenon was reflected by the 1905 census, after the IlindenPreobrazhenie Uprising (1903) and, then, in the first half of the 1920s.
Table 2. Migration growth of urban population in Bulgaria, in ‰14
1901–1905
1906–1910
1911–1920
1921–1926
1927–1934
1935–1946
For the urban
For the rural
population
Totev
Stefanov
Stefanov
2.3
0.8
13
16.3
10.5
9.8
4.2
12.6
14.8
6.7
Some scholars have supposed that the urbanization process was “decreasing”
in the interwar period, and they explain this with the impact of territorial changes
resulting from the Balkan Wars and World War I on the settlement system and
the urban-rural population ratio.15 According to the Treaty of Bucharest and the
Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine, eight towns16 were separated from Bulgaria (from
Southern Dobrudja and the Western Outskirts) and transferred to Romania and
11 In 1880 the urban population in the Bulgarian Principality constituted 16.7 percent of the total
population of the newly created state; in 1920 – 19.9 percent, and in 1934 – 21.4 percent. See: Василева,
Миграционни процеси в България, 110; Георгиев, Освобождението и етнокултурното, 24; Попов, Стопанска
България, 13.
12 Тотев, “Населението на България”, 26–32; Стефанов, Демография на България, 218; Даскалов,
Българското общество, 143.
13 Стефанов, Демография на България, 218.
14 Тотев, Населението на България, 26–32; Стефанов, Демография на България, 218.
15 Везенков, “Урбанизацията в България,” 56–69.
16 From South Dobrudja – Silistra, Tutrakan, Dobrich, Balchik, Kavarna, and from the Western Outskirts
– Bosilegrad, Strumitsa, Tsaribrod (Dimitrovdrad).
183
Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and another 1717 were added to the
country through the newly acquired lands. However, urbanization was declining,
because among the latter mentioned settlements, most were less economically
developed towns, and their minority Turkish and Muslim populations were
prone to emigration.18
Since the development of urbanization in Bulgaria between 1910 and
1946 has only rarely been made the subject of study and at the same time this
period (and especially its first half) was characterized by intensive refugee and
immigrant inflows of Bulgarians, Russians, and Armenians and the emigration
of the local Greeks and Turks (under the bilateral agreements with Greece and
Turkey for population exchange), I have devoted this inquiry to the role of
migration in the urbanization process. The quantitative analysis, on the basis
of which I have examined the interaction between migration and urbanization
phenomena and processes, is itself based on data concerning the urban (and
rural) populations in the Bulgarian censuses done in 1910, 1920, 1926, 1934,
and 1946. We have turned to this type of source because of the lack of other
statistics for the period in question. At that time, only a few countries were
collecting statistics which provide an adequate basis for a thorough assessment
of urbanization. For this reason indirect methods have commonly been used to
calculate the components of the increase in the pace of urbanization based on
census data.19 Often such studies are based on data concerning birthplace, and
they apply different research approaches.
In our particular case, we have used the statistical data for the urban (and
rural) populations recorded in correlation with the birthplace of the native-born
(born in Bulgaria) population (for those born in a settlement other than the place
of enumeration, i.e. for the in-migrants) and the foreign-born population (i.e.
immigrants). Data for in-migrants provide information about origins within the
country (i.e. another district within a given county, another county, or another
17 Ahtopol, Bansko, Gorna Dzhumaja (Blagoevgrad), Nevrokop (Gotse Delchev), Dyovlen (Devin),
Daradere (Zlatograd), Ortakyoi (Ivalovgrad), Koshukavak (Krumovgrad), Kardzhali, Malko Tarnovo,
Melnik, Mastanli (Momchilgrad), Petrich, Razlog, Mustafa pasha (Svilengrad), Pashmakli (Smolyan) and
Vasiliko (Tsarevo).
18 Везенков, “Урбанизацията в България,” 60; Данаилов, Изследвания върху, 164–68.
19 The Components of Urban Growth in Developing Countries. Population Division. Department
of Economic and Social Affairs. United Nations Secretariat. ESA/P/WP.169. Sept. 21. United
Nations, 2001, 58. Accessed on June 26, 2018. https://population.un.org/wup/Archive/Files/studies/
United%20Nations%20(2001)%20-%20The%20Components%20of%20Urban%20Growth%20in%20
Developing%20Countries.pdf
184
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
locality in the country), and data for immigrants reflect origins by countries. This
means that the statistical information “covers” the number of in-migrants at a
given time point, not counting mortality, and refers only to the first generation
of in-migrants (as opposed to the US censuses, for instance, which also collected
information concerning geographical family origins for subsequent generations
of families). In the case of statistical information concerning people who had
been born outside of the country, this information did not in any way address
the ways in which immigrants to Bulgaria moved (migrated) within the country
after having entered the country. Most immigrants to Bulgaria, however, were
very mobile for a time after having entered the country and did not immediately
settle down. When trying to establish the contribution of internal migration to
urbanization, the most important direction of this migration is from village to
town/city. However, from the point of view of the migration and concerning
the de facto population, in principle the Bulgarian censuses of 1910, 1920 and
1926 contain information on migration to towns/cities without reference to the
settlements of departure (i.e. whether the settlement from which a migrant to a
town/city came was a village or another town/city). Thus, this kind of database
includes data on inter-town/city migrations too. In this specific case, there were
significant patterns of migration from small urban centers to big urban centers.
In the Bulgarian censuses there is evidence of population movement from
villages to towns/cities only concerning the economically active population and
not the total population. Only the 1934 census provides statistical information
on migration in the direction of village–town/city. In the 1946 census, a
very different methodology was used, which is why this census is practically
incomparable with the previous censuses, at least from the perspective of the
data they contain concerning the directions of migration.
We have tracked some of the processes for different subperiods (and not for
the entire period under examination). This is because we do not have the relevant
data due to the different methodologies according to statistical information was
aggregated in 1934 and 1946.
We have based our quantitative analysis on some of the more important
theoretical frameworks in today’s understanding of urbanization. Our choices of
specific indicators were determined by these theoretical frameworks. Nowadays,
demographers define urbanization as the growth in the proportion of the
population living in urban areas.20 It is worth noting that this is not only a question
20 Poston and Bouvier, Population and Society, 307–11.
185
Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
of proportional growth, because urbanization does not simply mean growth in
urban populations. It also comprises growth in the relative share of the urban
population. In other words, if urban and rural populations grow at the same
pace, this should not be understood as urbanization. Urban population growth
is considered to be entirely the result of urbanization if the total population
does not change but the relative share of urban population is increasing; then,
the degree of urbanization (the degree of population growth in urban areas) is
equal to the growth rate of the urban population.21 However, in most urbanizing
countries, including Bulgaria, during the period in question, the total population
was growing, and it is possible to distinguish the proportion of urban population
growth resulting from urbanization from the proportion resulting from overall
population growth (the latter is roughly equal to the degree of urbanization plus
the rate of total population growth).
Using these definitions, in measuring processes and phenomena, we have
proceeded from the standpoint that urbanization is present when the urban
population growth rate exceeds the rural population growth, and we have used
this indicator as the main one, measured as the percentage of the total urban
or rural population, for the population of the small and big towns/cities,22 for
the capital, and for the separate ethnic groups in Bulgaria. Our intention was
to determine the contribution of the small and big towns/cities and the capital
to urbanization in Bulgaria and also to consider differences in the makeup of
urbanizing populations from the perspectives of sex and ethnicity. The final part
of the text is devoted to the interrelationships among migration, urbanization,
and industrialization and to some of the changes in the urban space. In order
better to corroborate the trends we have identified, we have also monitored other
indicators, such as the volume of migration and the number of in-migrants and
immigrants-refugees per 1,000 locals. Of course, we are aware of the general
nature of quantitative parameters and the presence of certain micro-processes
and background processes which cannot be numerically measured, because
urbanization is indeed primarily a result of migration, and it is reasonable to treat
it as such. However, urbanization is not just a consequence of migration from
village to city, especially if this migration is perceived as long-term or permanent
resettlement. Firstly, urbanization is the net result of complex migratory
movements between rural and urban areas, including circular migration back and
21 Tacoli, C. et al., World Migration Report 2015.
22 Until 1926, the censuses used 10,000 inhabitants as the threshold for the distinction between small
towns/cities and big towns/cities.
186
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
forth. Actually, migration from village to town/city may be a result of people
delaying their return or not returning to rural areas as they decide to remain in
the city in which they have settled. Secondly, urbanization involves both the net
movement of people to and within urban areas, the progressive expansion of
urban boundaries, and the creation of new urban centers. As already mentioned,
in principle, urbanization can also be accelerated by higher natural population
growth in urban areas and particularly high еmigration from rural areas, although
these factors are not considered very substantial.
Before undertaking the quantitative analysis, we would like to note that
during the period in question, there were no legislative restrictions on population
crowding in the cities. Administrative measures to limit migration were first
introduced for the capital city of Sofia in 1943.
The Contributions of Migration to Urbanization
We start examining the growth of Bulgaria’s urban population as a percentage
compared to the growth of the rural population, which is influenced by
migration (mechanical growth) and natural growth (and perhaps reclassification
of settlements).23 In the period from 1910 to 1946, the population of the
country grew from 4 million to 7 million. Both urban and rural populations
grew, but the share of the urban population increased from 19.1 percent in 1910
to 24.7 percent in 1946. This was due both to natural growth and to mechanical
movement. The change in the proportions of the urban and rural populations
was not as sharp as it was in the second half of the twentieth century, but it was
smooth. Over the course of 36 years, the urban population more than doubled
(+111.4 percent), while the rural population increased only by about half (+58.6
percent), so although the rural population grew in absolute terms, its relative
share declined from 80.9 percent in 1910 to 75.3 percent in 194624 (and this
growth in the relative share of the urban population was much greater than
that in the years preceding World War I25). The greatest increase in the urban
population as a proportion of the total population took place in 1911–1926
23 This indicator was used by the ethnographer G. Georgiev, in his study of the internal migration
and urbanization processes in the years after the formation of the Third Bulgarian State. See: Георгиев,
Освобождението и етнокултурното, 23.
24 Тотев, “Населението на България”, 177–79; Цеков, “Селската селищна,” 78.
25 In 1880–1900 for instance (i.e. for a period of 20 years), the urban population in Bulgaria increased
by 36.6 percent and the rural one by 31.6 percent. See: Георгиев, Освобождението и етнокултурното, 23.
187
Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
(+36 percent), then in 1927–1934 it was +15 percent and in 1935–1946 it was
+33 percent.
For the period between 1910 and 1926, statistics indicate a significant
difference in population growth in small and big towns/cities, i.e. in the towns/
cities with populations up to 10,000 inhabitants on the one hand and over
10,000 inhabitants on the other. Table 3 shows that population growth in the big
towns/cities outstripped growth in the small ones, but the determining factor in
this process was the enormous growth of the capital city. If Sofia is excluded,
population growth in small towns surpassed (albeit not by much) population
growth in big towns, and the proportional growth of the urban population in
Bulgaria up to 1926 was mainly due to the increase in the population of the
capital, which more than doubled.
Table 3. Growth of the population in absolute terms in small and big towns, Sofia, and villages,
1910–192626
Population in
Small towns
Big towns/cities,
including Sofia
Big towns/cities,
without Sofia
Sofia
Villages
1910
1926
Growth in
figures
%
251,849
321,239
+69.390
+27.5
331,582
+10,343
+3
577,678
808,892
+231.214
+40
970,969
+162,077
+20
474,866
595,890
+121.024
+25.5
683,874
+87,984
+15
1934
Growth in
figures
%
102,812
213,002
+110.190
+107
287,095
+74,093
+35
3,507,991
4,348,610
+840.619
+24
4,775,388
+426,778
+10
We seek in our inquiry to determine the extent to which urbanization was
influenced by migration in general (meaning both within the country and across
its borders) and, within this, the extent to which it was influenced by in-migration
on the one hand and immigration and emigration on the other. We establish the
relative share of the increase in the number of in-migrants and immigrants in the
towns/cities in relation to the increase in the urban population (for the territory
of the country in the respective census year) based on the abovementioned
birthplace data. Here, in the context of what has already been said about the
specifics of this kind of statistical information on migration to towns/cities,
26 Sources: Общи резултати 1923, 14–17; Общи резултати 1927, 16–23; Общи резултати 1931,
16–23.
188
we would like to point out again that migration to urban areas includes not only
migrants coming from villages but also migrants coming from other towns/
cities.27 Inter-town/city migration, and in particular migration from small towns/
cities to big towns/cities, was not terribly large and did not affect major trends.
In 1911–1926, total urban increase as a share of migration was 81 percent, and in
1927–1934 it was 61 percent. Generally speaking, during the period in question,
urbanization in Bulgaria was mainly due to migration, and mainly to internal
migration, representing 56 percent of the total migration growth in 1911–1926,
despite the intense refugee inflows of Bulgarians, Russians, and Armenians as
a consequence of the wars, and almost entirely to internal migration in 1927–
1934, when external migration was declining (Table 2).
The 1934 census data, which took into account migration from villages
to towns/cities, confirms this conclusion. We have analyzed a variety of data
concerning in-migrants who moved from villages to towns/cities and concerning
immigrants and refugees who came from foreign countries and settled in towns/
cities in Bulgaria, because the mobility of immigrants within Bulgaria is not
quantitatively known. There were almost twice as many in-migrants who moved
from villages to towns/cities as there were immigrants to Bulgaria who settled in
towns/cities. They constituted 64 percent of the people who settled in towns/
cities (Table 1).
The rise in the number of in-migrants to towns/cities and the rise in the
number of refugees and immigrants to towns/cities (per 1000 local people28)
correspond to the abovementioned trends. In 1911–1934, the number of inmigrants who moved from villages to towns/cities was steadily growing, more
than doubling and reaching almost half a million. Their number per 1,000 locals
was gradually increasing too, in the first half of the 1920s much more significantly
(reaching 402 in-migrants per 1,000 locals in 1934). This proportional increase
was particularly significant in the first half of the 1920s. By 1934, in-migrants
constituted almost one-third of the local population in the towns/cities of
Bulgaria.29 The number of refugees and immigrants was one third or one fourth
that of in-migrants to urban communities. The number of immigrants was twice
to three times smaller than that of the internal migrants, and it was growing
to the mid-1920s as a result of refugee flows. These refugee flows stopped,
27 Clearly, in-migration from one city to another does not affect the national rate of urbanization.
28 Population born in the locality where it was enumerated during the census.
29 At the same time, the proportion of in-migrants among the rural population remained unchangeable
until 1920 and only increased afterwards.
189
Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
however, and in 1934 the proportion of foreigners from the population became
lower (233 foreign-born per 1,000 locals) (Table 5).
Table 4. Number of in-migrants and immigrants/refugees among urban and rural de facto
population, 1910–193430
Immigrants/refugees
In-migrants
Local population*
among
1910
1920
1926
1934
Total
population of
Bulgaria
urban
rural
urban
rural
urban
population
rural
urban
rural
217,328
468,763
59,706
59,965
551,916
2,977,966
828,950 3,505,794
271,358
489,945
118,185
104,393
576,422
3,284,497
965,965 3,878,835
354,187
635,717
166,761
137,735
609,156
3,575,131
1,130,104 4,348,583
459,296
743,280
159,391
127,186
683,770
3,904,863
1,302,457 4,775,329
* Population born in the locality where it was enumerated during the census.
Table 5. Intensity of in-migrants and immigrants/refugees to the locals* among urban and
rural de facto population, in ‰, 1910–193431
Immigrants/refugees
among
rural
urban
rural
population
In-migrants
urban
1910
1920
1926
1934
393.8
157.4
108.2
20.1
470.8
129.8
205.0
31.8
581.4
149.2
273.8
38.5
671.7
190.3
233.1
32.6
* Population born in the locality where it was enumerated during the census.
30 Sources: Общи резултати 1923, 14–17; Общи резултати 1927, 6–23; Общи резултати 1931, 16–
23; Преброяване на населението, 3.
31 Sources: Общи резултати 1923, 14–17; Общи резултати 1927, 16–23; Общи резултати 1931, 16–
23; Преброяване на населението 3.
190
The Contributions of Sexes
During the period in question, a common gender characteristic of migration to
towns/cities was that the majority of migrants were men,32 as opposed to the
period after World War II, when predominantly women set off for urban areas.33
However, if one examines the data concerning numerical growth of migrants to
towns/cities in 1911–1934, it becomes evident that this phenomenon concerned
both sexes, but it was higher for women: +91 percent for male in-migrants and
+138 percent for female ones, and +131 percent for male immigrants and +228
percent for female ones, bearing in mind that at the same time the number of
in-migrants was twice or three times the number of immigrants. In this case,
the historical and cultural background played an important role in determining
the extent to which women had opportunities to migrate independently of
men. The Bulgarian model of economic development at the time, however,
also influenced the sex composition of the in-migration flow. Preferring to
employ men, the urban occupation structures seem to be the main factor in
setting limits for female migration to towns/cities. As we shall see, later the large
number of (unmarried) women migrating towards the towns/cities was linked
to employment opportunities, especially in the sector of “domestic service.”
The final result was a numerical preponderance of men in the cities in
the mid-1920s, where, unlike in the villages, there was the usual demographic
phenomenon of women outnumbering men because of longer life expectancies.
(Here, however, I would like to note that before the wars, compared to the other
countries, Bulgaria was distinguished by predominantly male populations in
both cities and villages, and by the mid-1930s, the two sexes had gradually come
to constitute roughly half of the population each, Table 6). In order to identify
the source of male preponderance in towns/cities, we have used as an indicator
the number of females per 1,000 males in the variations of the native-born and
foreign-born urban populations. Within the native-born populations, we see the
usual situation: women outnumbered men. But in the case of migrants, we find
precisely the opposite. At first glance, the related data show a preponderance
of men, and men were particularly numerous among refugees and immigrants
having in mind that among Bulgarians there was more balance, because they
lived predominantly as families. This was also true for the third-largest but still
32 Women mainly headed for villages.
33 Василева, Миграционни процеси в България, 110.
191
Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
a dozen times smaller refugee stream of Armenians. The Russians, second in
number but also dozens of times fewer, (being soldiers) were distinguished as
a male refugee and immigrant flow. But this contribution of external migrants
to urbanization is only seeming, since they were in principle half as many as inmigrants. So, in this case, the men who predominated in the in-migration flow to
the cities were the determinants (Table 6).
Table 6. Number of females per 1000 males among urban and rural population in Bulgaria,
1910–193434
Urban
1910
1926
1934
Rural
From the refugees and
Refugees
immigrants
and
Total
immigrants
Bulgarians Russians Armenians
Locals*
Inmigrants
1,062
752
612
935
544
1,057
880
844
966
890
1,014
944
874
971
341
Total
639
973
924
1,005
996
* Population born in the locality where it was counted during the census.
The Contributions of the Ethnicities
The migration towards towns/cities among the native-born population of
Bulgarian ethnicity was decisive for the process of urbanization, although the
relative share of the urban population within its variation was very low, because
being numerically dominant, it had an ascending trend (Table 7). However,
we were curious to consider the contributions to urbanization of other ethnic
groups recorded in the statistics. In understanding the analysis that follows, it
should be taken into consideration that behind the high rates of growth there
was a small number of migrants.
By volume, the resettlements in towns/cities prevailed among the indigenous,
comparatively small ethnic groups, such as Armenians and Jews, with a tendency
to increase between 1910 and 1926. However, they had come into being and
existed as urban diasporas. In 1910, 96 percent of local Jews and 88 percent
of local Armenians lived in towns/cities. This phenomenon is related to their
occupations. Over half (54 percent) of the economically active Armenians were
34 Sources: Общи резултати 1923, 14–17; Общи резултати 1931, 16–19; Преброяване на
населението, 3.
192
employed in industry (mostly in clothing and footwear production), and over
half (52 percent) of the economically active Jews were traders (dealing with sales
of clothing and footwear, food and beverages, foreign exchange, commissions
and exports). Another 36 percent of the latter worked in industry (in the
production of either clothing and footwear or beverage). Among the Armenians
and Jews, the main direction of in-migration was from small to big towns/cities.
They were concentrated in the big towns and cities, where their resettlements
(compared to the local Jewish and Armenian population) were distinguished
by their high number per 1000 locals, and therefore this movement did not
contribute to urbanization understood as the movement of in-migrants from
villages to towns/cities. In 1911–1926, among Armenians, quantitatively small
in-migration can be observed in the opposite, town/city-to-village direction.
The very high number of resettled people per 1000 locals within the Armenian
rural population shows that their rural diaspora was at that time a relatively
new phenomenon. A similar process can also be observed among the Jews in
1926. Hence, although among the local Armenians and Jews the relative share
of resettlements to the towns/cities increased (among the Jews +46 percent and
among the Armenians +41 percent) compared to their migration to villages, not
they, but the Armenian refugee wave from the first half of the 1920s constituted
the most significant contribution to urbanization in Bulgaria with their urban
resettlements’ impressive growth of +246 percent.
Table 8 shows that among the different ethnic groups it was the rural
population that predominated within the set of native-born people, except for
the Jews, Armenians and Greeks. According to the 1926 census data for the
foreign-born (i.e. the new refugees and immigrants), the Armenians, Bulgarians,
Jews, and Russians were mainly targeting towns/cities with an upward trend.
The Greek diaspora showed an interesting demographic trend for the period
1911–1926. Among the native-born Greeks, the urban population increased
by more than 20 percent, and among the foreign-born Greeks, it decreased by
five percent (although it was predominant there) (Table 7); the reason for this
was their nearly total exodus35 as a result of the Greek-Bulgarian Convention
on Voluntary Population Exchange of 27 November 1919. In 1910, about
91 percent of the total urban Greek diaspora lived in the towns of Kavakli
(Topolovgrad), Stanimaka (Asenovgrad), Varna, Sozopol, Burgas, Anhialo
(Pomorie), Mesemvria (Nesebar), and Plovdiv. It is obvious that after the wars,
35 Forty thousand were displaced and only ten thousand remained in Bulgaria.
193
Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
the local Greek population was increasingly concentrated in the towns/cities,
and the displacements themselves took place first among immigrants. In their
place, Bulgarian refugees were resettled. The native-born ethnic Turks were
distinguished by a small urban diaspora, whereas foreign-born Turks concentrated
in cities; in both variations there was a downward trend in migration of ethnic
Turks to towns/cities; the drop was perceptibly lower among immigrants.
Displacements which intensified during the wars and continued afterwards
contributed to this, but they were not the only factor. The Turkish population
started leaving towns/cities and resettling in villages, as evidenced by the rise
in their numbers as a percentage of the populations in villages (Table 7 and 8).
In the case of the Romanians and Tartars, there was a decrease in the urban
population (in terms of number and relative share) compared to 1910 for both
the native-born and foreign-born, but this was largely due to the cessation of
Southern Dobrudja to Romania. Among the minority diasporas in Bulgaria, only
the Russians turned from a rural community into urban one. This took place
because of the tendency among new Russian refugees and immigrants to settle
almost exclusively in the towns/cities. This caused an extraordinary increase in
their urban population of +2009 percent (Table 7). Hoping to return to their
home country soon, they did not accept Bulgarian citizenship, and so by law they
had no right to receive agricultural land (this explains their low share in rural
areas), unlike refugees of Bulgarian ethnic origin.
Table 7. Relative share of the urban population in Bulgaria among the different ethnic groups
in correlation with native- and foreign-born (i.e. for the old and the new diasporas), de facto
population, 1910, 192636
“nationality/natoinalité ethnique”
Armenians
Bulgarians
Jews
Greeks
Romanians
Russians
Tatars
Turks
Gypsies
Native-born
Foreign-born
1910
1926
1910
1926
85.8
92.6
90.3
93.0
17.2
18.5
43.4
50.4
95.9
97.1
97.5
98.1
59.3
79.8
74.5
70.5
7.7
0.8
35.1
26.0
10.8
59.9
42.6
63.3
27.7
16.2
63.2
45.5
15.0
11.9
63.7
42.6
25.4
24.0
26.9
16.7
36 Sources: Общи резултати 1923, 14; Общи резултати 1931, 18.
194
Table 8. Increase/decrease in the number of in-migrants and immigrants/refugees among the
urban and rural population of different ethnic groups in Bulgaria 1910–1926, in %37
“nationality/natoinalité ethnique”
Armenians
Bulgarians
Greeks
Jews
Romanians
Russians
Tatars
Turks
Gypsies
In-migrants
rural
urban
population
Immigrants
rural
urban
population
–46
+41
+151
+246
+37
+69
+165
+251
–72
–55
–48
–136
–13.5
+46
+8
+41
+45
–62
–33
–57
+451
+429
+1098
+2009
–53
–68
– 90
–75
+46.5
+30
+41
+15
+26
+31
+377
+160
The Contribution of the Small and Big Towns/Cities
Before considering the question referred to in the subtitle, we will try to explain
the changes in the data concerning the native-born population, which may seem
obvious at first glance. These changes are important because they influenced
the formation of the indicator of migrants’ number per 1,000 locals, and since
the analysis of the origin of these changes is a sign of whether it is a source of
out-migration or emigration, and because of the dynamics of the urbanization
itself. In the period from 1910 to 1926, the number of native-born population in
Bulgaria decreased sharply in both small and big towns/cities (excluding Sofia).
In small towns/cities, it decreased almost twice as much as it did in big ones
(it doubled only in Sofia). It is interesting to see how much this phenomenon
was due to migrations. We have tracked it at the settlement level and we have
found out that in 1926 in 18 of the 26 big towns and cities the native-born
population grew, and in some cases it grew considerably (in Burgas it doubled
and in Plovdiv it grew by one third). In the remaining 8 big towns,38 it decreased
from several hundred to not more than 1,500. In the case of big towns/cities,
three-quarters of the reduction was a result of the secession of the three major
towns in Southern Dobrudja after the Balkan wars (Silistra, Tutrakan, and
37 Sources: Общи резултати 1923; Общи резултати 1931.
38 Vratsa, Stanimaka (Assenovgrad), Samokov, Kazanlak, Chirpan, Svishtov, Shumen and Turnovo.
195
Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
Dobrich). The remaining loss was mainly due to the displacement of the Greeks
from Burgas, Varna, Plovdiv, and Stanimaka and to a very small extent, due to
mortality and other displacements. In the case of small towns, the decline of the
native-born population by half was due to the secession of the five cities with
the Treaty of Neuilly (Balchik, Kavarna, Bosilegrad, Tsaribrod, and Strumitsa).
It also partly diminished because of the expulsion of the Greeks.39 This loss
was not compensated by the 17 towns in the newly acquired territories and
the reclassification (i.e. new settlements which were declared towns), probably
owing to the in-migration and out-migration from the small to big towns/cities.
The loss of local urban population as a result of the secession of cities
(both small and large) and as a result of the territorial losses from the wars was
not only simply compensated in the period between 1926 and 1934 by still high
birth rates due to intense external and internal migration (the latter of which was
significantly larger), but as early as 1934 the pre-war number of the native-born
population had been exceeded. That is why we can conclude that the secession
of the towns/cities as a result of the wars lost by Bulgaria really had a negative
impact on the urbanization of the country, and if that had not happened, the
urbanization process would have been much stronger. However, it can not
be denied that it was intense and intensifying and quantitatively managed to
overcome the loss of the native-born urban population in less than ten years.
In this sense, we cannot speak about its stagnation or lagging behind. It simply
evolved in the context of changed territorial conditions.
The census statistics make it possible to identify the urbanization centers in
Bulgaria, which coincide with the destination points of migration flows. Towns/
cities differ in their socio-economic characteristics, so they have different
attractive opportunities. In order to estimate them, we consider the cities in the
two groups according to the number of their inhabitants (small and big). We
have separated the capital of Sofia, which was (and still is) the administrative
and cultural center of the country, from the group of other towns/cities, as
its growth was unprecedented and incomparable with that of other cities. The
data on settlements by groups of towns/cities show that the big towns/cities
(except the capital of Sofia) had the greatest influx of in-migrants, refugees and
immigrants by absolute number and by the indicator showing total number of inmigrants and immigrants-refugees per 1000 locals. This value in 1910 was twice
39 Among the Greek population in Bulgaria, until the Balkan wars there was relatively low mortality. See
Щерионов, “Демографският преход,” 256.
196
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
as high as in the case of the small towns. Despite that between 1910 and 1926
the small towns had a much larger growth of migratory influx (both in number
and percentage) than the big ones (a tendency which reversed between 1926
and 1934), but they were far behind in terms of migratory flows to the capital.
(Таble 9) The latter surpassed the influx to both small and big towns/cities not
only in their absolute numbers but in their intensity as well: in 1910, in the big
towns/cities (except Sofia) the total number of migrants and (in-migrants and
immigrants) per 1000 locals was twice as high. Sofia marked the greatest growth.
There, the number of migrants was almost twice as much as that of the locals.
In 1926, the local population declined in both small and big towns on account
of a sharp rise in the number of migrants (almost six times within the external
ones and 1.5 times within the internal ones) (Таble 9). Small towns strengthened
their position of attractiveness, and they caught up with their lagging behind and
the number of migrants per 1000 local people almost reached the level of big
towns, although the volume of migration to them was smaller. The capital was
once again distinct in scale from the other major cities. Migrants in the direction
of Sofia were twice as numerous as local residents.
To quantify the role of immigration and in-migration in the urbanization
of small and big towns/cities and the capital, we use an indicator that expresses
the relative share of the increase in the number of immigrants/refugees and
in-migrants in small and big towns/cities and Sofia compared to population
growth in them. For the small towns, +44.5% belong to immigrants and +32%
to in-migrants; for the big towns/cities +33% and +50% respectively, and for
Sofia +21% and +51%. Or, in general, until 1926 Sofia and the big towns were
growing predominantly by in-migrants, while small towns were increasing in size
because of immigrants (Table 3 and 10).
Now we are going to track the most significant role of migration in the
urbanization of separate towns/cities. In 1910, among the cities in Bulgaria,
the biggest attraction centers for migration (internal and external), apart from
the capital of Sofia, was the administrative center of the Burgas County, to
which Bulgarian refugees were directed. (At that time, it was the largest such
center in the county, with a population density below the average, and there
were quite large reserves of state and municipal land funds.) So, in these two
cities (Sofia and Burgas), 63 percent of the population consisted of in-migrants
and immigrants/refugees. This figure was followed by Varna with 49 percent,
Ruse with 45 percent, Plovdiv with 42 percent, and Shumen 30 percent. In
1926 the main centers of attraction for migration were the same cities but
197
Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
in a different sequence, and after the large refugee waves of Bulgarians from
Thrace, Macedonia, Dobrudja and the Western Outskirts as well as Russians
and Armenians, the number and the relative share of the settlers grew. Sofia
gave its first place to Burgas, where the majority of the population was migrant
(refugees, immigrants, in-migrants from other parts of the country) 87 percent,
and ranked second with 68 percent, followed by Plovdiv 56 percent, Varna 55
percent, Ruse 52 percent, Haskovo 47 percent, Sliven 28 percent, Shumen 26
percent. Subsequently, in the second half of the 1920s, the immigration flow
decreased considerably, stopping the refugee waves; so, Burgas (65 percent)
relinquished to Sofia (68.5 percent) the leading position in the attraction of
migrants. The abovementioned towns/cities (not taking into consideration the
capital) were traditional industrial and commercial centers, with Ruse, Varna,
and Burgas having the greatest ports on the Danube River and the Black Sea,
respectively, and Plovdiv enjoying investment of German, French, and Belgian
capital and a prospering food industry, Sliven being a center for the textile
industry, and Haskovo developing tobacco production and trade; yet a few of
them lost population through the expulsion of local Greeks (Burgas, Varna,
Plovdiv), which was compensated by in-migrants and immigrants/refugees of
Bulgarian ethnicity.
If we distinguish the urban attractiveness centers in relation to the extent of
their attraction for the internal and external migration flows, we find that Sofia
attracted an increasing percentage of the in-migration flow to towns/cities and the
whole immigration flow (1926: 29 percent and 10 percent, respectively, in 1934:
33 percent and 13 percent, respectively). The capital city was followed by Plovdiv,
which similarly showed an increase in its relative share in the internal migration
to cities (1926: 8 percent and 3 percent, respectively, in 1934: 10 percent and 2
percent, respectively). Then, by a relative share of five to ten per cent compared
to the in-migration to towns/cities, come Varna and Ruse in 1910 and 1934 and
Shumen and Varna in 1926. Another several towns/cities developed as centers
of attraction for refugees and immigrats (based on the indicator of immigrants’
relative share in the given city compared to all immigrants in the towns/cities in
Bulgaria), with values clearly distinguishable from those of other towns/cities;
they were Sofia (1926: 25 percent, 1934: 27.5 percent), followed by Plovdiv (1926:
12 percent, 1934: 19 percent), Varna (1934: 11 percent); refugees accepted into
Svilengrad (1926: 6 percent), Burgas (1926: 5.4 percent, 1934: 5 percent), Haskovo
(1926: 4 percent); but in the following years, the number of immigrants there was
decreasing significantly due to displacement within the country.
198
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
In fact, the data shows that the main attraction center for migration was
the capital, and the other four major Bulgarian cities of Plovdiv, Varna, Ruse,
and Burgas lagged behind it, and only very seldom did migratory flows stand
out in the urbanization of small towns. This is understandable considering
that the aforementioned cities best suited the standard of living in Bulgaria
at the time. Sofia was the most developed city in Bulgaria. It had electricity
and good supplies of water. In the 1920s, the Rila water main was built, the
construction of sewerage was started, and after the wars, the capital transformed
from a predominantly consumer center and a city of clerks and officers into
a commercial and industrial center with a large working class. The lack of
settlements with truly urban profiles and with high standards of living, including
better incomes and living facilities, contributed to Sofia’s becoming the most
dynamically developing city in Bulgaria. In the second half of the 1930s, the
Batova-Varna water pipeline was built, which supplied water to the sea capital.
The new ports of Varna and Burgas, put into operation in the very beginning of
the twentieth century, contributed to their urban revival.
Table 9. Total number of migrants (in-migrants and immigrants/refuges) and locals* and the
number of migrants per 1,000 locals in small and big towns/cities, and in Sofia, 1910–193440
Towns with up to 10.000
inhabitants
Towns/cities with and
above 10.000 inhabitants,
without Sofia
Migrants Locals* Intensity Migrants
56,530 195,096
1910
109,955 144,211
1926
+/– in
+53,425 –50,885
numbers
+94.5
–26
+/– %
115,456 215,932
1934
+/– in
+5501 +71.721
numbers
+5
+49.7
+/– %
Sofia
Locals* Intensity Migrants
Locals* Intensity
289.8
220,504
356,820
618.0
64,993
37,768
1720.9
762.5
267,028
328,862
812.0
144,265
68,714
2099.5
+46,524
–27,958
534.7
+21
–8
306,406
377,468
+39.378 +48.606
+14.7
+14.8
+79,272 +30,946
811.7
+122
+82
196,825
90,370
2178.0
+52,560 +21,656
+36.4
+31.5
* Population born in the locality where it was enumerated in the census.
40 Sources: Общи резултати 1923, 14–17; Общи резултати 1927, 16–23; Общи резултати 1931, 16–
23; Преброяване на населението 3.
199
Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
Table 10. Number of immigrants and in-migrants together in the small and big towns/cities,
and in Sofia, de facto population, 1910–192641
Immigrants in
Towns/cities
Towns
with and
with up
above 10.000
to 10.000
inhabitants,
inhabitants
without Sofia
1910
1926
+/–
in figures
Sofia
In-migrants
Towns/cities
Towns with
with and
up to 10.000 above 10.000
inhabitants
inhabitants,
without Sofia
Sofia
6,639
34,608
18,459
49,891
120,903
46,534
37,547
87,357
41,857
72,108
179,671
102,408
+30,908
+52,749
+23,398
+22,217
+58,768
+55,874
To What Extent Was Urbanization Through Migration Related to the
Modernization of Towns/Cities and to Industrialization?
Unfortunately, the Bulgarian censuses do not contain information about the
inter-professional in-migrants’ mobility to towns/cities. In order to answer
this question, we have used the data that we have on the sectoral structure of
the economically active population within in-migrants coming from villages
to towns/cities, but only for the population of Bulgarian ethnic origin. This
type of statistics on refugees and immigrants of Bulgarian (Table 11) and other
ethnic origin (Tables 12, 13) was not published in correlation with villages and
towns/cities, and that is why the data are incomparable. We have only used them
as a guideline.
The coefficient of economic activity among the in-migrants of Bulgarian
ethnic origin (who predetermine the whole structure) in the village-to-town/city
direction was higher (1920: 61.7 percent, 1926: 60.2 percent) than the average
for the country (54 percent), which indicates that most of them were labor
migrants moving in search of a livelihood. The coefficient of economic activity
among foreign-born refugees and immigrants was even higher (63.8 percent
for 1926). In the professional structure of economically active women who
had moved from village to town (Table 12) the sector of “domestic servants”
dominated (over 40 percent). The urbanization process means not only village–
to–town migration, but also perception of the urban way of life as well. Part
41 Sources: Общи резултати 1923, 14–17; Общи резултати 1927, 16–23; Общи резултати 1931,
16–23.
200
of the urban lifestyle of the upper stratum in this period included the hiring of
domestic servants. Even a regular servant exchange was organized in Sofia. Girls
from all over the country, led by parents and dragomans, came to Sveti Kral
Square (St. Kral), today’s St. Nedelja Square (St. Holy Sunday) every St. George’s
Day and St. Dimitar’s Day in order to seek employment. It is noteworthy that
former maidservants were preferred by bachelors as wives, especially among
the peasantry, because they were literate and well-informed.42 The data in Table
11 show that women hardly left home and farm work, and they very slowly
entered the professional work. Female laborers were more likely to be employed
in professional work. 18 percent of them were occupied in industry, and only 4
percent in public services and the liberal professions. Those occupied in industry
(38 percent) predominated among the male village-to-town in-migrants; again,
among them in second place was the sector of “public services and the liberal
professions” (31 percent).
However, based on the available data, it can be summarized that in the first
half of the 1920s, among in-migrants (both men and women), the number and
relative share of those occupied in the industrial sector was growing markedly;
in addition, the number of workers in the industrial sector was growing much
more rapidly than the number of workers in the agricultural sector. The male
in-migrants of Bulgarian ethnicity went predominantly into industry, as did
male refugees and immigrants of non-Bulgarian ethnicity, as indirectly can be
assumed on the basis of Tables 12 and 13.
42 Даскалов, Българското общество, 153–54.
201
Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
Table 12. Professional structure of the economically active village-to-town in-migrants of
Bulgarian ethnicity, de facto population, by sex, in figures and %, 1920–192643
14.8
Industry incl.
mining, crafts and
communications
28.7
Trade
11.6
1.4
Public services and
liberal professions
35.5 19.5
7,105
In figures
%
17,236
12.7
total
female
male
total
male
35.6
18.6
11,364
11,099 22,463
19,589
2,198
21,787
38.0
17.7
32.8
34,164
5,510 39,674
9.3
7905
288
8,193
13.3
1.6
10.3
11,935
484 12,419
42.8
5.0 34.2
29,213
1,003
30,216
31.0
4.3
24.1
27,861
1,340 29,201
Domestic servants
0.5
46.8 11.0
310
9,364
9,674
0.4
40.7
10.8
382
12,693 13,075
Undetermined
1.6
1114
46
1,160
4.6
0.1
4.7
4,116
88,266 100.0 100.0 100.0
89,822
Total
11.0 24.7
10,131
female
male
total
female
In figures
%
Agriculture and
live stockbreeding,
hunting and
fishing
1926
male
total
female
male
1920
0.3
1.3
100.0 100.0 100.0
68,262 20,004
34
4,150
31,160 120,982
Table 13. Professional structure of the economically active urban immigrants and refugees of
non-Bulgarian ethnicity, de facto population, by sex, in figures and %, 192644
male
Agriculture and live
stockbreeding, hunting and
fishing
Industry incl. mining, crafts
and communications
Trade
Public services and liberal
professions
Domestic servants
Undetermined
Total
female
%
total
male
female
In figures
total
15.7
50.7
21.8
5,434
3,718
9,152
49.8
27.7
45.9
17,203
2,032
19,235
15.5
4.9
13.6
5,349
359
5,708
8.8
11.4
9.3
3,042
838
3,880
0.7
5.2
1.5
231
383
614
9.5
0.1
7.9
3,280
10
3,290
100.0
100.0
100.0
34,539
7,340
41,879
43 Sources: Общи резултати 1926, 4–5; Общи резултати 1932, 4–7.
44 Ibid.
202
Table 14. Professional structure of the economically active refugees and immigrants of
Bulgarian ethnicity, de facto population, by sex, in figures and %, 192645
Agriculture and live stockbreeding,
hunting and fishing
Industry incl. mining, crafts and
communications
Trade
Public services and liberal
professions
Domestic servants
Undetermined
Total
female
%
total
male
female
In figures
total
48.4
84.9
61.1
48,178
45,240
93,918
28.6
10.1
22.1
28,425
5,401
33,826
8.3
0.8
5.7
8,315
332
8,647
7.7
2.7
6.0
7,651
1,437
9,088
0.2
1.5
0.7
178
820
998
6.8
0.0
4.4
6,764
23
6,787
100.0
100.0
100.0
99,511
53,253
152,764
Urbanization is also reflected in the creation of new structures in the
organization of urban space. In fact, its main sign was the change in the
economic structures of the urban space. By the Mid-twentieth century, a general
characteristic of the Bulgarian towns/cities, including the big ones and the capital,
was their rural appearance, resulting from the presence of large sectors with a
high agricultural character. In order to establish the changes, we have compared
the occupational structure of the economically active population of Bulgarian
ethnicity in the towns/cities (locals and inter-town/city migrants, according to
the correlation of “born in towns/cities and counted as residents in the census”
of Bulgarian ethnicity) with the occupational structure of the village-to-town/
city in-migrants of Bulgarian ethnicity (Table 10) during the first half of the
twentieth century. In the occupational structure of the economically active
Bulgarian-born population which was counted as urban residents in 1920 and
1926, a slight decrease from 30.7 percent to 29.8 percent is visible in the relative
share of those employed in agriculture as well as a rise from 35.4 percent to 36.2
percent among those employed in industry. Economically active in-migrants of
Bulgarian ethnicity headed from the villages to the towns/cities to work mainly
in the industry, where their share increased considerably (from 24.7 percent to
32.8 percent) in the first half of the 1920s. (Table 12) Among them, for this
relatively short period, the relative share of the people occupied in agriculture
and livestock breeding decreased from 19.5 percent to 18.6 percent. Thus, by
45 Source: Общи резултати 1932, 4–7.
203
Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
comparing the changes in the professional structure of the two variations of
the predominant economically active population of Bulgarian ethnicity, we have
found that the decline in the importance of the agricultural sector was minimal
and had the same values (–0.9 percent) for both variations. Within the structure
of the village-to-town in-migrants, the share of industrial sector increased by 8
percent. This means that the locals and the new residents were giving up just as
little of their agricultural occupations in order to engage in some kind of urban
one. And the “strengthening” of industrial production in the urban economy
was definitely due to in-migration and was the result of a shift among the new
citizens to industrial activities.
Conclusion
We can summarize the results of the quantitative analysis of the birthplaces of
Bulgaria’s population from the perspective of the role of internal and external
migration (i.e. in-migration and immigration) in the processes of urbanization
as follows:
Urbanization in Bulgaria in the period in question was mainly due to
migration and in particular to in-migration, although it was undoubtedly closely
related to the refugee wave and immigration during the war and in the interwar
period, which strengthened the expansion of the towns and cities. The dryingup of the refugee inflow did not lead to a decline in the urbanization process.
On the contrary, there was intensified internal migration towards the towns
and cities and specifically in the direction from village to town/city. This was a
characteristic phenomenon for other countries as well. Similar phenomena were
observed in the United States in the first decades of the twentieth century, but
in relation to the strengthening of restrictions on immigration.
In the first half of the 1920s, many people (predominantly men) left the
villages and began to engage in non-agricultural activities in the towns and cities.
But an initial process of feminization of in-migration towards the towns/cities
as well as of the industrial labor force was evident too.
There was a relationship between emigration, on the one hand, and
internal migration and immigration on the other, which is well illustrated by the
replacement of the displaced Greek population with Bulgarian refugees and inmigrants.
The decisive role of in-migration in the urbanization process in Bulgaria
was determined by in-migration to the big towns and cities (including Sofia).
204
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
This was because the urbanization of big towns/cities (understood as urban
population growth) quantitatively exceeded the urbanization of small ones, and
it was largely determined by inter-urban migration from small to big towns.
At the same time, the urbanization of small Bulgarian towns was primarily
driven by immigration.
The trend of ascending development (albeit at a slow pace) of the
urbanization process in Bulgaria was mainly due to in-migration from village
to town/city of the predominantly Bulgarian ethnic population, but the
contribution of Armenian and Russian refugees was also quantitatively visible.
The main destinations for immigrants, with values clearly distinguishable
from those of other towns/cities, was Sofia. It attracted an increasing percentage
of the in-migrant flow towards the towns and of the whole set of internal
migrants. Sofia was followed by the second largest city in Bulgaria, Plovdiv, but
the numbers in the case of Plovdiv were much smaller.
The urbanization of the capital Sofia, which was growing to the size of a
super city (certainly with regard to the living and working conditions in Bulgaria),
stood out from the perspective of its scale, even against the background of the
so-called big towns and cities.
Bibliography
Printed sources
Общи резултати от преброяванията на населението в Царство България на
31.ХІІ.1910 г. Кн. І, София, 1923.
Общи резултати от преброяването на населението в Царство България на
31.12.1920 г. Кн. ІІІ. Статистика на професиите. София, 1926.
Общи резултати от преброяването на населението в Царство България на
31.12.1920 г. Кн. І. План и организация на преброяването. София, 1927.
Общи резултати от преброяването на населението в Царство България на
31.12.1926 г. Кн. І. План и организация на преброяването. София, 1931.
Общи резултати от преброяването на населението в Царство България на
31.12.1926 г. Кн. ІІІ. Статистика на професиите. София, 1932.
Преброяване на населението на 31 декември 1934 г. Кн. I. Общи резултати. Пол,
месторождение, поданство, вероизповедание, говорим език, грамотност и
образование. София, 1938.
205
Hungarian Historical Review 8, no. 1 (2019): 179–207
Secondary literature
Bencivenga, Valerie R., Bruce D. Smith. “Unemployment, Migration and Growth.”
Journal of Political Economy 105, no. 3 (1997): 582–608.
Bilsborrow, Richard E. “Migration, Population Change and the Rural Environment.” In
ECSP Report 8. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Environmental
Change and Security Project, 2002, 69–94.
Ivanov, Martin. The Gross Domestic Product of Bulgaria, 1870–1945. Sofia, 2012.
Kavzoglu, Taşkin. “Determination of Environmental Degradation due to Urbanization
and Industrialization in Gebze, Turkey.” Environmental Engineering Science 25, no. 3
(2008): 429–38.
Kopsidis, Michael, Martin Ivanov. “Was Gerschenkron right? Bulgarian Agricultural
Growth during the Interwar Period in the Light of Modern Development
Economics.” ESHES Working Paper, no. 82 (July 2015): 29. Accessed on March 3,
2018. http://www.ehes.org/EHES_82.pdf
Lampe, John R., Marvin R. Jackson. Balkan Economic History, 1550–1950: From Imperial
Borderlands to Developing Nations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982.
Long, Katy. “When refugees stopped being migrants: Movement, labor and humanitarian
protection” Migration Studies 1, no. 1 (2013): 4–26.
Poston, Dudley, and Leon Bouvier. Population and Society: An Introduction to Demography.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Tacoli, C., G. McGranahan, D. Satterthwaite. World Migration Report 2015:
Urbanization, Rural–urban Migration and Urban Poverty. Background paper.
December 2014. Accessed on January 14, 2018. https://www.iom.int/sites/
default/files/our_work/ICP/MPR/WMR-2015-Background-Paper-CTacoliGMcGranahan-DSatterthwaite.pdf
Teichova, Alice. “Industry.” In The Economic History of Eastern Europe, 1919–1975. Vol. 1,
Economic Structure and Performance between the Two Wars, edited by M. Carl Kaser, and
E. A. Radice. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.
White, Michael J., ed. International Handbook of Migration and Population Distribution. Vol. 6.
Heidelberg–New York–London, 2016.
Василева, Бойка. Миграционни процеси в България след Втората световна война [Migration
processes in Bulgaria after the Second World War]. София, 1991.
Везенков, Александър. “Урбанизацията в България до Втората световна война:
темпове и характер” [Urbanization in Bulgaria until the Second World War: its
pace and character]. Минало, no. 3 (1999): 56–69.
206
Migration and Urbanization in Industrializing Bulgaria
Георгиев, Георги. Освобождението и етнокултурното развитие на българския народ, 1877–
1900 [The liberation and ethnocultural development of the Bulgarian nation].
София, 1979.
Груев, Михаил. “Демографски тенденции и процеси в България в годините след
Втората световна война” [Demographic tendencies and processes in Bulgaria
in the years after the Second World War]. In Знеполски, Ивайло, ред. История
на Народна република България: Режимът и обществото [History of the People’s
Republic of Bulgaria: its regime and society]. София, 2009.
Даскалов, Румен. Българското общество, 1877–1939 [Bulgarian society 1877–1939]. Т.
2. София, 2005.
Данаилов, Георги. Изследвания върху демографията на България [Research on the
demography of Bulgaria]. София, 1930.
Марчева, Илияна. “Социални измерения на урбанизацията в България след
Втората световна война” [Social dimensions of urbanization in Bulgaria after the
Second World War]. Балканистичен форум, no. 2 (1997): 119–130.
Марчева, Илияна. Политиката за стопанска модернизация в България по време на
Студената война [Politics of economic modernization in Bulgaria during the Cold
War] . София, 2016.
Минков, Минко. Миграция на населението [Population migration]. София, 1972.
Младенов, Чавдар., Емил Димитров. “Урбанизацията в България от Освобождението
до края на Втората световна война” [Urbanization in Bulgaria from the Liberation
to the end of the Second World War]. География 21, no. 1 (2009): 13–17.
Найденова, П. “Миграционни процеси в България през отминалите столетия”
[Migration Processes in Bulgaria in the past centuries]. Население, no. 2 (2000): 3–15.
Попов, Кирил. Стопанска България [Economics of Bulgaria]. София, 1916.
Стефанов, Иван. и др. Демография на България [Demography of Bulgaria]. София, 1974.
Тотев, Анастас. “Населението на България, 1880–1980: Демографско-исторически
очерк” [The population of Bulgaria, 1880–1980: a historical demographic sketch].
Год. на СУ, ЮФ, no. 2 (1968): 26–32.
Цеков, Николай. “Селската селищна мрежа като фактор в развитието на човешкия
потенциал на българското село” [Rural village network as factor for development
of the human potential of the Bulgarian village]. Население, nos. 1–2 (2011): 77–92.
Щерионов, Щ. “Демографският преход по българските земи – специфики и
начални граници” [The demographic transition in the Bulgarian lands – specifics
and initial time limits]. In Българското възрожденско общество - проблеми,
борби и постижения. Сборник с изследвания в чест на 75-годишнината на
доц. д-р Огняна Маждракова-Чавдарова, 248–58. София, 2012.
207