Decessit sine prole Childlessness, Celibacy, and Survival of the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

“Decessit sine prole” – Childlessness, Celibacy, and Survival of the Richest in Pre-Industrial England

David de la Croix1 Eric Schneider2 Jacob Weisdorf3

1Université catholique de Louvain 2London School of Economics 3University of Southern Denmark

March 22, 2017

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

What we do

There are two main demographic explanations of the Rise of the West

◮ European Marriage Pattern ◮ Evolutionary Advantage of the Rich

We assess the reality of their demographic features on English pre-industrial data (family reconstitution data) Our contribution with respect to the literature: take all margins of fertility into account, including celibacy and childlessness

2 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

European Marriage Pattern

Hajnal (1965) line from Saint Pe- tersburg to Trieste. To the west of the line, late mar- riage, high celibacy rates

→ strong Malthusian preventive

check

→ higher income per person

+ girls’ power (De Moor and Van Zanden 2010.) Was Hajnal’s Western Europe marriage pattern instrumental to its economic success? disputed: Voigländer and Voth (AER 2013) against Dennison and Ogilvie (JEH 2014)

3 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

European Marriage Pattern and Preventive Check

from Clark’s book A Farewell to Alms, Princeton, 2007

4 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Evolutionary Advantage of the Rich

In sum: the rich enjoyed higher fitness than the rest and their “capitalistic attitudes” spread as a result Galor and Moav (QJE 2002): Take-off to modern growth can be explained by an increase in the proportion of people in the population preferring quality (of children) over quantity For their proportion to increase, need for an evolutionary advantage Clark and Hamilton (JEH 2006): a rich father had 40% more kids than a poor one (2250 testators in England, c. 1600) same holds using Cambridge Group data (Boberg-Fazlic, Sharp, and

• Weisdorf. EREH, 2011)

→ the “capitalist” values spread through English society prior to the

Industrial Revolution

5 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Theory

Purpose: analyze main components of net reproduction rate n(c). Following Baudin, de la Croix and Gobbi (2016), we use the following decomposition: n(c) = m(c) (1 − z(c)) b(c) (1 − d(c)) (1) c: social class, m(·): marriage rate, z(·): fraction of childless married women, b(·): number of birth conditionally on having children, d(·): infant mortality rate. (assumes singles do not have children, and fully homogamous marriage)

6 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

European Marriage Pattern with all Margins

age 45 15 % women 0% 100% child mortality delaying marriage celibacy childlessness birth b(c) d(c) z(c) 1 − m(c) adult mortality

7 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

New Margins

Literature focuses on the intensive margin: b(c) (1 − d(c)) and usually (1 − d(c)) b′(c) − b(c) d′(c) > 0 i.e. evolutionary advantage to the high social class Does it still hold when all margins are accounted for ?

n′(c) = (1 − z(c))b(c)(1 − d(c)) m′(c)

• marriage margin

− m(c)b(c)(1 − d(c)) z′(c)

• childlessness margin
• Extensive margins of fertility

+ m(c)(1 − z(c)) ((1 − d(c)) b′(c) − b(c) d′(c))

• intensive margin of fertility

.

• ne needs to estimate z(c), m(c), b(c) and d(c) from data.

8 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Parish registers

Parish registers were formally introduced in England on 5 September 1538 following the split with Rome Injunction requiring the registers of baptisms, marriages and burials to be kept Civil registration of births, marriages, and deaths for England and Wales began on 1 July 1837

9 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Family reconstitution data

Collected by the Cambridge Group for History of Population and Social Structure, the full set

• f family reconstitution data

includes over 300,000 individuals recorded in registers coming from a total of 26 provincial, English parishes. These parishes were chosen by the Cambridge Group because of the high quality of data. The full data cover 1541 to 1871 We take a subsample restricted to the reliable period (parish specific)

10 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion 1733

• bapt. wife 1

1766 marriage

Inn Holder 1770

• bur. wife 1

1766 Elizabeth burial 1768

1770 marriage

Victualler

burial 1808

Printer 1802

• bur. wife 2

1771 1773 1775 1777 1778 1782 1786 John John Elizabeth Ann Sarah Ann Thomas William

? ? ? ?

burial 1772

• mar. 1794

burial 1777 burial 1780 mar 1812 burial 1820 burial 1786 Inn Keeper E l i z a b e t h N i c h

• l

l s Elizabeth Treadwell

John Cheney

Parish of Banbury In 1967 the renowned business family of Cheney decided to mark 200 years of printing in Banbury by publishing a book to celebrate this remarkable milestone. The story begins at the Unicorn where the first John Cheney was both printer and publican. Johns time at the Unicorn ended in 1788 when he moved the printing business to a shop in Red Lion Street. 11 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Occupations

Use Clark and Cummins (Jpop 2015) classification 1 Labourers/Servants

• incl. seamen

2 Husbandmen small farmers, weavers 3 Craftsmen tailors, carpenters 4 Traders innkeepers, butchers, bakers 5 Farmers 6 Merchants/Professionals clerks, medical, printers 7 Gentry gentlemen, esquire Unknown Observed from baptism registers (occupation of father), marriage, burial.

12 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Occupations (2)

9 per cent of the father’s occupations changed over life cycle. Assign maximum social group if reasonable. Assign unknown otherwise.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 17666 1087 624 330 187 229 37 87.6% 5.4% 3.1% 1.6% 0.9% 1.1% 0.2% 2 11827 463 168 230 139 28 92.0% 3.6% 1.3% 1.8% 1.1% 0.2% 3 14440 368 38 236 43 95.5% 2.4% 0.3% 1.6% 0.3% 4 7904 129 578 96 90.8% 1.5% 6.6% 1.1% 5 3528 78 91 95.4% 2.1% 2.5% 6 3516 232 93.8% 6.2% 7 1581 100% Max occupation × Min occupation

13 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Methodological contribution

The standard in the literature is to estimate fertility with a restricted sample of women surviving past age 40 or 50 Problem is not only that many observations are lost, but also the contributions to fertility of those with lower survival times are dismissed. To overcome this, we propose Cox proportional hazards models for censored data (early death) to compute the predicted fertility rates from the corresponding survival curves.

14 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Marriage Rate m(c) - Sample

• Cox proportional hazard model estimating the risk of marriage of

the female population aged 16+

• Right censoring of participants (death). Cox allows to use the

information from those who died early.

• Sample of 8,611 individuals. Mean age at death is 46.09 years.

Marriage rate: 58.6%

• Requirement: observe birth and death in the parish (no permanent

migration)

• Married = either married in the parish or child baptized in the parish

15 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Marriage Rate m(c) - Method

• Period is divided in four subperiods of equal length → time

dummies (fct. marriage date of parents)

• Inclusion of 26 parish dummies
• Reference category: Labourers in parish 1, first subperiod
• Cox implies the baseline hazard rate (the risk of getting married) is

shifted proportionally by the occupation of the father

16 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Descriptive stat. - risk of getting married

20 25 30 35 40 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 age hazard rate

Labourers, Servants & Husbandmen (solid line) vs Merchants, Professionals & Gentry (dashed line)

17 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Marriage Rate m(c) - Estimation

Dependent variable:

• Proba. marrying

coef

• Haz. ratio

ρ

Labourer & servants 1.00 Husbandmen

−0.085

0.92 0.01 Craftsmen

−0.193∗∗∗

0.82 0.01 Traders

−0.181∗∗

0.83 0.00 Farmers 0.081 1.09

• 0.02

Merchants/Professionals

−0.325∗∗∗

0.72

• 0.00

Gentry

−0.331∗∗

0.72 0.01 UnknownOccupation

−0.093∗

0.91 0.00 Observations 8,611 4 Period dummies yes 26 Parish dummies yes Note:

∗p<0.1; ∗∗p<0.05; ∗∗∗p<0.01

18 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Marriage Rate m(c) - Result

Compute the survival function (i.e. celibacy rate) at 45

m(c)

0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85

Unknown Labourers, Servants Husbandmen Craftsmen Traders Farmers Merchants, Professionals Gentry

19 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Childlessness rate z(c) - Sample

Cox proportional hazard models to estimate the risk of a married couple having a first birth. Couples become at risk of a first birth upon marriage and censoring

• ccurs when the mother dies.

We limit our sample to couples whose burial dates are known to ensure that we do not attribute childlessness to couples that migrated out of the parish. Restrict the sample to first marriages

Statistic N Mean

• St. D.

Min Q(25) Med. Q(75) Max At risk for 1st birth 14,730 0.850 0.357 1 1 1 1 Spacing 12,517 1.37 1.35 0.00 0.72 0.94 1.52 18.01

20 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Descriptive stat. - risk of having a first birth

1 2 3 4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 age hazard rate

Labourers, Servants & Husbandmen (solid line) vs Merchants, Professionals & Gentry (dashed line)

21 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Childlessness rate z(c) - Estimation

Dependent variable:

• Proba. having first birth

coef

• Haz. ratio

ρ

Labourer & servants 1.00 Husbandmen

−0.030

0.97 0.01 Craftsmen

−0.013

0.99 0.00 Traders

−0.038

0.96 0.01 Farmers

−0.203∗∗∗

0.82 0.00 Merchants/Professionals

−0.185∗∗∗

0.83 0.02 Gentry

−0.249∗∗∗

0.78 0.02 UnknownOccupation

−0.284∗∗∗

0.75 0.00 Observations 14,730 4 Period dummies yes 26 Parish dummies yes

22 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Childlessness rate z(c) - Result

Compute the survival function 10 years after marriage

z(c)

0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17

Unknown Labourers, Servants Husbandmen Craftsmen Traders Farmers Merchants, Professionals Gentry

23 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Possible Reasons for High Childlessness

Mean age at marriage ? (entry sterility) No. Bias in occupations as observed from baptism record Inheritance practices among the wealthy (Gobbi and Goñi) Syphillis more prevalent for Gentry. But would it affect P0 ? Arranged/Loveless marriages among the wealthy Husband was constantly traveling to oversee estates ? Consanguinity leading to infertility? Fear of deforming their bodies, of maternal mortality, of the burden of a pregnant belly?

24 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Mothers’ fertility b(c)

Parity progression ratios Pn =Proba to have n + 1 kids | having n

Mothers’ Completed Fertility = 1 + P1

• 1 + P2
• 1 + P3 . . .
• 1 +

Pn 1 − Pn

• But we are not only interested in completed families. Hence

b(c) = s0

• 1 + s1P1
• 1 + s2P2
• 1 + s3P3 . . .
• 1 +

snPn 1 − snPn

• where sn is the probability to survive after the nth kid.

→ need to estimate all the parity progression ratios Pn

25 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Mothers’ fertility b(c) - Estimation

Dependent Proba. Proba. Proba. Proba. Proba. variable: 2sd child 3rd child 4th child 5th child 6th child Labourers & Servants Husbandmen 0.099∗∗ 0.070 0.051 0.087 0.049 Craftsmen 0.126∗∗∗ 0.047 0.100∗∗ 0.166∗∗∗ 0.149∗∗ Traders 0.183∗∗∗ 0.166∗∗∗ 0.231∗∗∗ 0.280∗∗∗

−0.015

Farmers 0.196∗∗∗ 0.117∗ 0.164∗∗ 0.043

−0.032

Merchants/Professionals 0.231∗∗∗ 0.189∗∗∗ 0.207∗∗∗ 0.155∗ 0.132 Gentry 0.119 0.157 0.385∗∗∗ 0.258∗∗ 0.385∗∗∗ UnknownOccupation

−0.069∗∗ −0.102∗∗∗ −0.056 −0.019 −0.029

Observations 12,519 10,738 8,993 7,280 5,679

26 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Mothers’ fertility b(c) - Estimation

Dependent Proba. Proba. Proba. Proba. variable: 7th child 8th child 9th child 10th child Labourers & Servants Husbandmen

−0.068

0.103 0.215

−0.050

Craftsmen 0.022 0.007 0.269∗∗ 0.050 Traders 0.233∗∗

−0.083

0.305∗∗ 0.327∗ Farmers 0.110 0.069

−0.055 −0.287

Merchants/Professionals 0.219∗ 0.233∗ 0.481∗∗∗ 0.004 Gentry 0.375∗∗ 0.462∗∗ 0.699∗∗∗

−0.224

UnknownOccupation

−0.069

0.074 0.212∗∗

−0.116

Observations 4,201 2,959 1,932 1,154

27 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Mothers’ fertility b(c) - Results

b(c)

3.000 3.200 3.400 3.600 3.800 4.000 4.200 4.400 4.600 4.800

Unknown Labourers, Servants Husbandmen Craftsmen Traders Farmers Merchants, Professionals Gentry

28 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Child mortality d(c) - Sample

Cox proportional hazard model. Exposure for children begins from birth, events are closed if a child dies and right censoring occurs after age 15. we must observe the child’s birth year and their mother’s year of death. require that the mother’s year of death is 15 years after the child’s birth to ensure that the family did not move away from the parish before the child reached 15. Children who we do not observe dying are assumed to have survived to age 15.

29 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Child mortality d(c) - Estimation

Dependent variable:

• Proba. of death

Labourers & Servants Husbandmen

−0.006

Craftsmen 0.027 Traders 0.045 Farmers

−0.008

Merchants/Professionals 0.054 Gentry 0.043 Unknown Occupation

−0.003

Observations 48,865 4 Period dummies yes 26 Parish dummies yes

30 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Net Reproduction

Compare net reproduction with the intensive margins only:

¯

n(c) = ¯ m (1 − ¯ z) b(c) (1 − d(c)) to net reproduction with all margins: n(c) = m(c) (1 − z(c)) b(c) (1 − d(c))

m 1 − z b 1 − d n

¯

n Labourers, Servants 0.80 0.92 3.91 0.75 2.14 1.95 Husbandmen 0.77 0.91 4.00 0.75 2.09 1.99 Craftsmen 0.73 0.91 4.20 0.74 2.08 2.07 Traders 0.74 0.91 4.53 0.74 2.24 2.23 Farmers 0.82 0.87 4.12 0.75 2.21 2.06 Merchants/Professionals 0.68 0.87 4.57 0.74 2.01 2.24 Gentry 0.68 0.86 4.60 0.74 1.98 2.26 Unknown 0.77 0.85 3.50 0.75 1.70 1.74 Mean 0.76 0.87 3.77 0.75 1.87 1.87

31 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Net Reproduction

1.900 2.000 2.100 2.200 2.300

Labourers, Servants Husbandmen Craftsmen Traders Farmers Merchants, Professionals Gentry

32 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Selection issue

Three types of people stayers (birth and death known) in-migrants (birth certificate missing)

• ut-migrants (death certificate missing)

m(c) is based on stayers b(c), z(c), and d(c) are based on stayers and in-migrants

33 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Selection bias in m(c)

Potential problems:

(i) different migration rates for women across the social groups (ii) women migrating from a particular group more likely to remain celibate

for (ii), we cannot do anything. For (i), compute emigration rate by group:

Emigration rates Linear Probability Model Son of Daughter of Son of Daughter of Labourers/Servants 58.5% 60.4% Reference group Husbandmen 53.1% 58.1%

−0.021∗∗ −0.001

Craftsmen 52.8% 57.5%

−0.043∗∗∗ −0.014∗

Traders 56.1% 60.0%

−0.033∗∗∗ −0.013

Farmers 54.2% 61.6%

−0.038∗∗∗

0.001 Merchants/Professionals 53.6% 57.0%

−0.034∗∗∗ −0.019

Gentry 46.7% 56.8%

−0.054∗∗∗

0.008 UnknownOccupation 53.5% 57.0%

−0.011 −0.011

Observations 65,183 62,453

34 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Selection bias in b(c), z(c), and d(c)

We can do more, assuming out-migrants are similar to in-migrants We can compare in-migrants to stayers, and see if the social gradient differs Example: To measure childlessness we used 14,730 couples with known marriage date and death date. Among them, 4,125 couples were in-migrants into the parish. We introduce a dummy for in-migrant, and interact it with social groups Conclusion: in-migrants are more likely to be childless, have lower parity progressions, and have higher child mortality, but this is true for all social groups → no bias in social gradient

35 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Cox Model. Analysis of z(c): non-migrants vs in-migrants

Benchmark Model with in-migrant interactions group in-migrant dummies interactions In-migrant Dummy

• 0.275∗∗∗

Husbandmen

−0.030 −0.047

0.041 Craftsmen

−0.013 −0.050

0.103 Traders

−0.038 −0.069

0.076 Farmers

−0.203∗∗∗ −0.250∗∗∗

0.130 Merchants/Professionals

−0.185∗∗∗ −0.238∗∗∗

0.191 Gentry

−0.249∗∗∗ −0.337∗∗∗

0.318 Unknown Occupation

−0.284∗∗∗ −0.305∗∗∗

0.069

36 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Implications for Growth

The different features of the West European marriage pattern were used differently even within the boundaries of a single economy.

Thomas Gainsborough – “Mr and Mrs Andrews”

Gentry: High celibacy & childlessness rates

37 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Labourers: Low birth rate within marriage

Ford Madox Brown – “Work”

Middle class: Traders, farmers: higher net reproduction rate

38 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

The evolutionary advantage of the middle class, growth promoting?

• Lower classes unable to invest in growth-enhancing education of

their children

• Upper classes, especially the landed elites, relied on rental income

from their estates, did not participate in activities that fostered economic growth (Doepke and Zillibotti QJE 2008)

• Less than three per cent of English industrialists were of

upper-class origin (Crouzet 1985).

• 85 per cent of industrialists came from a middle-class family.

39 / 40

Introduction Theory Data Measuring the Four Margins Net reproduction Selection Implications Conclusion

Conclusion

Previous work: evolutionary advantage of the pre-industrial elites This study: the middle classes outperformed the upper classes. This reversal arises because of higher singleness and childlessness. Given that an overwhelming majority of English industrialists came from the middle class, its evolutionary advantage might have been growth promoting.

40 / 40