Decessit sine prole

Childlessness, Celibacy, and Survival of the Richest

in Pre-Industrial England
David de la Croix1

Eric Schneider2

Universit catholique de Louvain

London School of Economics
3
University of Southern Denmark
2

June 17, 2016

Jacob Weisdorf3

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

What we do

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

I European Marriage Pattern

I 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 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

European Marriage Pattern

Hajnal (1965) line from Saint Petersburg to Trieste.
To the west of the line, late marriage, high celibacy rates

strong Malthusian preventive

check

higher income per person

+ girls power (De Moor and Van Zanden 2010.)
Was Hajnals Western Europe marriage pattern instrumental to its
economic success? disputed: Voiglnder and Voth (AER 2013) against
Dennison and Ogilvie (JEH 2014)
3 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

European Marriage Pattern and Preventive Check

from Clarks book A Farewell to Alms, Princeton, 2007

4 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

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 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

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 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

European Marriage Pattern with all Margins

age
45

child mortality
d(c)

chil
z (c) dlessness

adult mortality

celibacy
1 m(c)

birth b(c)

delaying marriage
15
0%

% women

100%
7 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

New Margins
Literature focuses on the intensive margin: b(c) (1 d(c))
and usually (1 d(c)) b0 (c) b(c) d0 (c) > 0 i.e. evolutionary
advantage to the high social class
Does it still hold when all margins are accounted for ?
n0 (c) = (1 z(c))b(c)(1 d(c)) m0 (c) m(c)b(c)(1 d(c)) z0 (c)

{z

marriage margin

{z

childlessness margin

{z

Extensive margins of fertility

+ m(c)(1 z(c)) ((1 d(c)) b0 (c) b(c) d0 (c)) .

|
{z
}
intensive margin of fertility

one needs to estimate z(c), m(c), b(c) and d(c) from data.
8 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

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 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

Family reconstitution data

Collected by the Cambridge
Group for History of Population
and Social Structure, the full set
of 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 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

Parish of Banbury
1766
Elizabeth

burial 1768

Elizabeth Treadwell
1733

1770

bapt. wife 1

1766
marriage

bur. wife 1

Inn Holder

burial 1808
Printer

1770
marriage

? John Cheney

Victualler

1802
bur. wife 2

Nicholls
Elizabeth

1771

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.

Inn Keeper

1773
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.

1775
1777
1778
1782
1786

John
John
Elizabeth Ann

burial 1772
mar. 1794

Sarah

burial 1777

Ann

burial 1780

Thomas

mar 1812

William

burial 1786

burial 1820

11 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

Occupations

Use Clark and Cummins (Jpop 2015) classification

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0

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

incl. seamen
small farmers, weavers
tailors, carpenters
innkeepers, butchers, bakers
clerks, medical, printers
gentlemen, esquire

Observed from baptism registers (occupation of father), marriage, burial.

12 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

Occupations (2)
9 per cent of the fathers occupations changed over life cycle.
Assign maximum social group if reasonable. Assign unknown otherwise.

1
17666
87.6%
0

2
1087
5.4%
11827
92.0%
0

3
624
3.1%
463
3.6%
14440
95.5%
0

4
330
1.6%
168
1.3%
368
2.4%
7904
90.8%
0

5
187
0.9%
230
1.8%
38
0.3%
129
1.5%
3528
95.4%
0

6
229
1.1%
139
1.1%
236
1.6%
578
6.6%
78
2.1%
3516
93.8%
0

7
37
0.2%
28
0.2%
43
0.3%
96
1.1%
91
2.5%
232
6.2%
1581
100%

Max occupation Min occupation

13 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

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

14 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

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

15 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

0.08
0.06
0.02

0.04

hazard rate

0.10

0.12

Descriptive stat. - risk of getting married

20

25

30

35

40

age

Labourers, Servants & Husbandmen (solid line) vs Merchants,

Professionals & Gentry (dashed line)
16 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

Marriage Rate m(c) - Estimation

Dependent variable:
coef
Labourer & servants
Husbandmen
Craftsmen
Traders
Farmers
MerchantsProfessionals
Gentry

Proba. marrying
Haz. ratio

0.325
0.331

1.00
0.92
0.82
0.83
1.09
0.72
0.72

0.01
0.01
0.00
-0.02
-0.00
0.01

UnknownOccupation

0.093

0.91

0.00

Observations
4 Period dummies
26 Parish dummies
Note:

8,611
yes
yes

p<0.1; p<0.05; p<0.01

0.085
0.193
0.181
0.081

17 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

Marriage Rate m(c) - Result

Compute the survival function (i.e. celibacy rate) at 45
m(c)
0.85

0.8

0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6
Unknown

Labourers,
Servants

Husbandmen

Craftsmen

Traders

Farmers

Merchants,
Professionals

Gentry

18 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

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
occurs 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
st

At risk for 1 birth

Spacing

Mean

St. D.

Min

Q(25)

Med.

Q(75)

Max

14,730
12,517

0.850
1.37

0.357
1.35

0
0.00

1
0.72

1
0.94

1
1.52

1
18.01
19 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

1.0
0.0

0.5

hazard rate

1.5

2.0

Descriptive stat. - risk of having a first birth

age

Labourers, Servants & Husbandmen (solid line) vs Merchants,

Professionals & Gentry (dashed line)
20 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

Childlessness rate z(c) - Estimation

Dependent variable:
coef

Proba. having first birth

Haz. ratio

Labourer & servants

Husbandmen
Craftsmen
Traders
Farmers
MerchantsProfessionals
Gentry

0.030
0.013
0.038
0.203
0.185
0.249

1.00
0.97
0.99
0.96
0.82
0.83
0.78

0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.02

UnknownOccupation

0.284

0.75

0.00

Observations
4 Period dummies
26 Parish dummies

14,730
yes
yes

21 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

Childlessness rate z(c) - Result

Compute the survival function 10 years after marriage
z (c )
0.17

0.15

0.13

0.11

0.09

0.07

0.05
Unknown

Labourers, Husbandmen
Servants

Craftsmen

Traders

Farmers

Merchants,
Professionals

Gentry

22 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

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 Goi)
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?
23 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

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 + s1 P1


1 + s2 P2


1 + s3 P3 . . .

1+

sn Pn



1 sn P n

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

need to estimate all the parity progression ratios Pn

24 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

Mothers fertility b(c) - Estimation

Dependent
variable:

Proba.
2sd child

Proba.
3rd child

Proba.
4th child

Proba.
5th child

Proba.
6th child

Labourers & Servants

Husbandmen
Craftsmen
Traders
Farmers
MerchantsProfessionals
Gentry

0.099
0.126
0.183
0.196
0.231
0.119

0.070
0.047
0.166
0.117
0.189
0.157

0.051
0.100
0.231
0.164
0.207
0.385

0.087
0.166
0.280
0.043
0.155
0.258

0.049
0.149
0.015
0.032
0.132
0.385

UnknownOccupation

0.069 0.102 0.056

0.019

0.029

Observations

12,519

7,280

10,738

8,993

5,679

25 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

Mothers fertility b(c) - Estimation

Dependent
variable:
Labourers & Servants
Husbandmen
Craftsmen
Traders
Farmers
MerchantsProfessionals
Gentry
UnknownOccupation
Observations

Proba.
7th child

Proba.
8th child

Proba.
9th child

Proba.
10th child

0.068

0.103
0.007
0.083
0.069
0.233
0.462

0.215
0.269
0.305
0.055
0.481
0.699

0.050

0.074

0.212

0.116

2,959

1,932

0.022
0.233
0.110
0.219
0.375

0.069
4,201

0.050
0.327
0.287
0.004
0.224

1,154

26 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

Mothers fertility b(c) - Results

b(c)
4.800
4.600
4.400
4.200
4.000
3.800
3.600
3.400
3.200
3.000
Unknown

Labourers, Husbandmen
Servants

Craftsmen

Traders

Farmers

Merchants,
Professionals

Gentry

27 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

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 childs birth year and their mothers year of death.
require that the mothers year of death is 15 years after the childs 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.

28 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

Child mortality d(c) - Estimation

Dependent variable:

Proba. of death

Labourers & Servants

Husbandmen
Craftsmen
Traders
Farmers
Merchants & Professionals
Gentry

0.027
0.045
0.008
0.054
0.043

Unknown Occupation

0.003

Observations
4 Period dummies
26 Parish dummies

48,865
yes
yes

0.006

29 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

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))

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

m
0.80
0.77
0.73
0.74
0.82
0.68
0.68
0.77
0.76

1z
0.92
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.87
0.87
0.86
0.85
0.87

b
3.91
4.00
4.20
4.53
4.12
4.57
4.60
3.50
3.77

1d
0.75
0.75
0.74
0.74
0.75
0.74
0.74
0.75
0.75

n
2.14
2.09
2.08
2.24
2.21
2.01
1.98
1.70
1.87

n
1.95
1.99
2.07
2.23
2.06
2.24
2.26
1.74
1.87
30 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

Net Reproduction
2.300

2.200

2.100

2.000

1.900
Labourers,
Servants

Husbandmen

Craftsmen

Traders

Farmers

Merchants,
Professionals

Gentry

31 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

Conclusion

Implications for Growth

The different features of the West European marriage pattern were used
differently even within the boundaries of a single economy.
Gentry: High celibacy & childlessness rates
Labourers: Low birth rate within marriage
Middle class: Traders, farmers: higher net reproduction rate

32 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

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.

33 / 34

Introduction

Theory

Data

Measuring the Four Margins

Net reproduction

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.

34 / 34