Institutional and Societal Factors Influencing Migration

Four factors that could encourage or restrict migration

Migration depended on more than a person's wish to move. Britain might offer opportunities, but institutions could decide who was permitted to enter or remain, while social attitudes affected how migrants were treated after arrival.

Four connected factors help explain these developments: institutions, religion, economic influences and attitudes in society. Each could encourage migration or inhibit it. Their relative importance depended on the circumstances: an economic opportunity mattered less if a government prevented the people concerned from entering.

Institutions: the power to invite, protect or exclude

Institutions are established organisations with authority and influence. Across this history, government includes medieval monarchs as well as later governments and their departments. The Church was also powerful: it shaped beliefs and rules about acceptable behaviour.

After the Norman Conquest of 1066, William I invited Jewish communities to England because of the economic role they could play. Royal support therefore helped make settlement possible. Jewish settlers were regarded as ‘servants of the crown’ and received protection, but this created dependence on the monarch. They also faced heavier taxation than other subjects. Protection was not the same as equal treatment.

Institutional power could work in the opposite direction. Edward I expelled Jewish people from England in 1290. Hostility towards a community and a royal order were different things: the king's authority turned exclusion into an enforceable policy.

Government priorities were not always economic or religious. The Aliens Act of 1793, introduced during the French Revolution, reflected fears that people arriving from France might threaten political stability. Security concerns could therefore restrict migration even when people were seeking refuge.

Religion: a reason for refuge and a source of exclusion

Religion could make England attractive to some migrants while making others vulnerable. Its influence depended on both migrants' beliefs and the religious character of English society.

The Huguenots were French Protestants. In 1685, Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, removing religious toleration in France. Tens of thousands of Huguenots settled in England during the 1680s. Persecution explains why they left France; England's reputation as a more tolerant Protestant country helps explain why they chose it. England was not the only Protestant destination available.

Religion also influenced economic life. The medieval Catholic Church condemned usury, meaning lending money at interest, as sinful. Many Jewish migrants were encouraged to work as moneylenders. This connects religious rules with an economic role that rulers valued. However, Jewish migrants also worked as doctors, artists, fishmongers and cheesemakers: moneylending does not describe the whole community.

The Church as an institution and religion as a factor overlap, but are not identical. A Church ruling is an exercise of institutional authority; shared faith or religious prejudice can influence people beyond any particular organisation.

Economic influences: useful skills did not guarantee acceptance

Economic influences include employment, trade, investment and demand for skills. Rulers could encourage migration because they expected migrants to benefit the economy.

In the fourteenth century, Flemish migrants were encouraged to settle in England for their weaving skills and to help replace population lost during the Black Death. Economic needs helped explain the welcome. Yet Flemish migrants were among those murdered by participants in the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. Being economically useful did not protect them from popular hostility.

Economic interests could also produce opposition. When Jewish settlement was permitted again in the mid-seventeenth century, Puritan leaders hoped migrants would help rebuild the English economy. Some English merchants, however, opposed their arrival because they feared competition. The same migration could appear beneficial to rulers and threatening to particular workers or traders.

Attitudes in society: policy and everyday treatment could differ

Attitudes in society include tolerance, religious prejudice and racism. They affected migrants' experiences and could support or conflict with government policy. Society did not hold one uniform view: different groups could respond differently to the same arrivals.

From the late 1100s, increasing antisemitism brought greater discrimination against Jewish people in England. Their earlier royal protection had not removed prejudice. This shows why migration opportunities and experiences must be considered together: permission to settle did not ensure security or acceptance.

In post-war Britain, racism was also connected with immigration policy. Major legislation in 1962, 1968 and 1971 was designed at least partly to reduce the number of black and brown people permitted to live and work in the UK. Meanwhile, government bodies concerned with race relations promoted racial equality. Institutions could therefore pursue conflicting directions: restricting immigration from minority ethnic groups while seeking to combat discrimination within Britain.

How the factors worked together

The Huguenots provide a clear example of interaction. Religious persecution in France encouraged departure, while Protestant England's reputation for greater tolerance attracted refugees. Royal protection then supported settlement: William III and Mary II raised £39,000 to help resettle them. Many Huguenots brought wealth, and they made an important economic contribution. Religious affinity, institutional assistance and economic resources reinforced one another.

For medieval Jewish migrants, the interaction produced a different outcome. Rulers valued their economic contribution and initially offered protection; Church teaching influenced the economic roles open to them; growing antisemitism worsened their treatment; and royal authority ultimately imposed expulsion in 1290.

Evaluating a factor means explaining its particular influence, not choosing one permanent ‘main cause’. Economic usefulness helps explain an invitation, but institutional power determines whether protection or exclusion becomes policy. Social attitudes help explain why official permission might still be accompanied by discrimination.

The four factors

• Institutions: government and Church could invite, protect, regulate or exclude migrants.
• Religion: shared beliefs could attract refugees; persecution and prejudice could restrict acceptance.
• Economic influences: demand for skills, labour and investment encouraged migration; fear of competition encouraged opposition.
• Attitudes in society: tolerance, antisemitism and racism shaped treatment and could influence policy.