Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T21:14:54.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children’s Roles and Fertility: Late Nineteenth-Century United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Avery M. Guest  and
Stewart E. Tolnay
Avery M. Guest
Affiliation:
University of Washington, Seattle
Stewart E. Tolnay
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Athens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article focuses on the importance of employment and educational roles for children in understanding major aspects of the American fertility transition of the late 1800s. It views the declining economic contribution of children to family income and the increased short-run costs of children from schooling as important factors in explaining variations in marital fertility among parts of the United States, and also for understanding the general downward trend of fertility in the late 1800s.

Data on children ever born from the 1910 census are used to analyze variations across states in childbearing among two cohorts of married white women. One cohort (those 70-74 years of age in 1910) did most of their childbearing in the period after the Civil War; while the younger cohort (40-44 in 1910) re-produced mainly in the period just before the turn of the century. Relationships between reproductive behavior of individual mothers and their own children’s roles will also be investigated through a sample of the 1900 manuscript census, based on a 1 in 750 household sample of the 1900 manuscript census (Graham, 1980). Special attention will be devoted to urban-rural variation in the effect of children’s activities on fertility.

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Science History , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , Fall 1983 , pp. 355 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 1983 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research has been supported by a grant from NICHD, “U. S. Fertility in 1900.” We are grateful to Timothy Armstrong and Joyce Lee for their help in data collection. A slightly different version of this article was presented at the 1982 annual meeting of the Population Association of America, San Diego, CA.

References

Ayres, L. P. (1920) An Index Number for State School Systems. New York: Department of Education, Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Banks, J. A. (1954) Prosperty and Parenthood. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bolton, F. and Bibb, T. W. (1935) History of Education. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Caldwell, J. C. (1981) “The mechanisms of demographic change in historical perspecive.” Population Studies 35: 6–2710.2307/2174833Google Scholar
Caldwell, J. C. (1980) “Mass education as a determinant of the timing of fertility decline.” Population and Development Rev. 6 (June): 225–255.Google Scholar
Caldwell, J. C. (1978) “A theory of fertility: from high plateau to destabilization.” Population and Development Rev. 4 (December): 553–577.Google Scholar
Coale, A. and Trussell, T. J. (1974) “Model fertility schedules: variations in the age structure of childbearing in human populations.” Population Index 40 (April) 185–258.10.2307/2733910Google Scholar
Coale, A. and Zelnik, M. (1963) New Estimates of Fertility and Population in the United States. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Coontz, S. H. (1957) Population Theories and the Economic Interpretation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Easterlin, R. (1976) “Factors in the decline of farm family fertility in the United States: some preliminary research results.” J. of American History 63 (December): 600–614.Google Scholar
Eldridge, H. T. and Thomas, D. S. (1964) Population Redistribution and Economic Growth, United States, 1870-1950: Demographic Analysis and Interrelationships. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Forster, C. and Tucker, G. S. L. (1972) Economic Opportunity and White American Fertility Ratios, 1800-1860. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, R. (1968) “Issues in multiple regression.” Amer. J. of Sociology 73 (March): 592–616.10.1086/224533Google Scholar
Grabill, W. R., Kiser, C. V., and Whelpton, P. K. (1958) The Fertility of American Women. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Graham, S.N. (1980) 1900 Public Use Sample User’s Handbook. Seattle: Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Guest, A. M. (1981) “Social structure and U.S. inter-state fertility differentials in 1900.” Demography 18 (November): 465–486.Google Scholar
Guest, A. M. and Tolnay, S. (1983) “Urban industrial structure and fertility: the case of large American cities.” J. of Interdisciplinary History 13 (Winter): 387–409.Google Scholar
Guest, A. M. (1982) “Social variations in children’s roles: U.S. school attendance in 1900.” Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology, Univ. of Washington, Seattle. (Unpublished)Google Scholar
Hermalin, A. (1976) “Empirical research in Taiwan on factors underlying differences in fertility,” pp. 243–266 in Coale, A. J. (ed.) Economic Factors in Population Growth. New York: John Wiley.10.1007/978-1-349-02518-3_9Google Scholar
Kaestle, C. F. and Vinovskis, M. A. (1980) Education and Social Change in Nineteenth-Century Massachusetts. Cambridge MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Knodel, J. (1974) The Decline of Fertility in Germany, 1871-1935. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Lindert, P. H. (1978) Fertility and Scarcity in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Minge-Kalman, W. (1978) “The industrial revolution and the European family: the institutionalization of childhood as a market for family labor.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 20 (July): 454–468.Google Scholar
Nardinelli, C. (1980) “Child labor and the factory acts.” J. of Economic History 40 (December): 739–755.Google Scholar
National Industrial Conference Board (1925) The Employment of Young Persons in the United States. New York: Author.Google Scholar
Osterud, N. and Fulton, J. (1976) “Family limitation and the age at marriage decline in Sturbridge, Massachusetts, 1750-1850.” Population Studies 20 (November): 481–484.Google Scholar
Ruzicka, L. T. and Caldwell, J. C. (1977) The End of the Demographic Transition in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Department of Demography, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Smith, D. S. (1979) “Life course, norms, and the family system of older Americans in 1900.” J. of Family History 4 (Fall): 285–298.10.1177/036319907900400303Google Scholar
Temkin-Greener, H. and Swedlund, A. C. (1978) “Fertility Transition in the Connecticut Valley: 1740-1850.” Population Studies 32 (March): 27–41.Google Scholar
Tolnay, S. E., Graham, S. N., and Guest, A. M. (1982) “Own-child estimates and U. S. White fertility, 1886-98.” Historical Methods 15 (Summer): 127–138.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1943) Population. Differential Fertility 1940 and 1910. Fertility for States and Large Cities. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1907) Child Labor in the United States. Bulletin No. 69. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1906) Supplementary Analysis and Derivative Tables. Special Report from the Twelfth Census of the U.S. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1904) Abstract of the Twelfth Census of the United States: 1900. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Office (1902) Population, Part II. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Office (1872a) A Compendium of the Ninth Census. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Office (1872b) Ninth Census. Volume II. The Vital Statistics of the United States. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Office (1872c) Ninth Census. Volume III. The Statistics of the Wealth and Industry. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Office (1853) The Seventh Census of the United States: 1850. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Commissioner of Education (1902a) Annual Report, Vol. I. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Commissioner of Education (1902b) Annual Report, Vol. II. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Commissioner of Education (1874) Annual Report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Commissioner of Education (1872) Annual Report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Van De Walle, F. (1980) “Education and the demographic transition in Switzerland.” Population and Development Rev. 6 (September): 463–472.Google Scholar
Vinovskis, M.A. (1976) “Socio-economic determinants of interstate fertility differentials in the United States in 1850 and 1860.” J. of Interdisciplinary History 6 (Winter): 375–396.10.2307/202662Google Scholar
Yasuba, Y. (1961) Birth Rates of the White Population in the United States, 1800-1860: An Economic Study. Studies in Historical and Political Science, Series LXXIX, Number 2. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.Google Scholar