IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberhi/0031.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Use of Historical Census Data for Mortality and Fertility Research

Author

Listed:
  • Michael R. Haines

Abstract

This paper illustrates the application of indirect techniques of fertility and mortality estimation to historical census data, both in published form and as micro census samples derived from the original enumerators' manuscripts. There are many instances in which census data exist but adequate vital registration data do not, such as in the United States prior to 1933, when the Birth and Death Registration Areas finally covered the entire nation. Since the United States has taken decennial censuses since 1790, and since all the original population schedules except those for 1890 have been preserved, it is possible to apply these indirect methods. For example, the censuses of 1900 and 1910 asked questions on children ever born, children surviving, and duration of current marriage, but this information was never tabulated or used for 1900 and only partly tabulated for 1910. The Public Use Samples of the 1900 and 1910 censuses make possible the utilization of those data to estimate levels, differentials, and even recent trends in childhood mortality. Application of own-children methods to samples of the censuses since 1850 permits estimation of age-specific overall and marital fertility rates. Finally, the use of the 1900 Public Use Sample in conjunction with published data on parity from the 1910 census (or tabulations from the 1910 Public Use Sample) allows application of the two-census, parity increment method of birth rate estimation.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael R. Haines, 1991. "The Use of Historical Census Data for Mortality and Fertility Research," NBER Historical Working Papers 0031, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberhi:0031
    Note: DAE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/h0031.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul David & Thomas Mroz & Warren Sanderson & Kenneth Wachter & David Weir, 1988. "Cohort parity analysis: Statistical estimates of the extent of fertility control," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 25(2), pages 163-188, May.
    2. Wilson Grabill & Lee Cho, 1965. "Methodology for the Measurement of Current Fertility From Population Data on Young Children," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 2(1), pages 50-73, March.
    3. Atack, Jeremy & Bateman, Fred, 1992. "How Long Was the Workday in 1880?," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 129-160, March.
    4. Haines, Michael R., 1980. "Fertility and Marriage in a Nineteenth-Century Industrial City: Philadelphia, 1850–1880," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 151-158, March.
    5. Michael Haines, 1979. "The use of model life tables to estimate mortality for the United States in the late nineteenth century," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 16(2), pages 289-312, May.
    6. Cho, Lee-Jay & Grabill, Wilson H., 1965. "Methodology for the measurement of current fertility from population data on young children," Series Históricas 8314, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Haines, 1989. "American fertility in transition: New estimates of birth rates in the United States, 1900–1910," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 26(1), pages 137-148, February.
    2. Benoît Laplante & Teresa Castro-Martín & Clara Cortina & Teresa Martín-García, 2015. "Childbearing within Marriage and Consensual Union in Latin America, 1980–2010," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 41(1), pages 85-108, March.
    3. Lee-Jay Cho, 1968. "Income and differentials in current fertility," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 5(1), pages 198-211, March.
    4. Valeria Bordone & Francesco Billari & Gianpiero Dalla Zuanna, 2009. "The Italian Labour Force Survey to estimate fertility," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 18(3), pages 445-451, August.
    5. Ian Timæus, 2021. "The Own-Children Method of fertility estimation: The devil is in the detail," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 45(25), pages 825-840.
    6. Guinnane, Timothy W. & Moehling, Carolyn M. & O Grada, Cormac, 2006. "The fertility of the Irish in the United States in 1910," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 465-485, July.
    7. Ronald Rindfuss, 1976. "Annual fertility rates from census data on own children: Comparisons with vital statistics data for the United States," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 13(2), pages 235-249, May.
    8. Angela Greulich & Aurélien Dasre, 2017. "The quality of periodic fertility measures in EU-SILC," Post-Print hal-01726581, HAL.
    9. Lee-Jay Cho & Man Hahm, 1968. "Recent change in fertility rates of the Korean population," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 5(2), pages 690-698, June.
    10. Barry Tuchfeld & Leverett Guess & Donald Hastings, 1974. "The bogue-palmore technique for estimating direct fertility measures from indirect indicators as applied to Tennessee counties, 1960 and 1970," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 11(2), pages 195-205, May.
    11. Juliana Jaramillo-Echeverri, 2023. "La transición de la fecundidad en Colombia: nueva evidencia regional," Cuadernos de Historia Económica 60, Banco de la Republica de Colombia.
    12. Francesco Scalone & Martin Dribe, 2017. "Testing child-woman ratios and the own-children method on the 1900 Sweden census: Examples of indirect fertility estimates by socioeconomic status in a historical population," Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(1), pages 16-29, January.
    13. Douglas Massey & Brendan Mullan, 1984. "A demonstration of the effect of seasonal migration on fertility," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 21(4), pages 501-517, November.
    14. Chackiel, Juan & Mérida Pedraza, Amelia, 1986. "Fecundidad: diferenciales geográficos y socioeconómicos de la fecundidad, 1960-1983. EDENH II y otras fuentes," Series Históricas 8963, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    15. Stewart Tolnay, 1981. "Trends in total and marital fertility for black Americans, 1886–1899," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 18(4), pages 443-463, November.
    16. Angela Greulich & Aurélien Dasré, 2017. "The quality of periodic fertility measures in EU-SILC," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(17), pages 525-556.
    17. Benoît Laplante & Ana Laura Fostik, 2015. "Two period measures for comparing the fertility of marriage and cohabitation," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 32(14), pages 421-442.
    18. Michael Haines, 1977. "Mortality in nineteenth century america: Estimates from New York and Pennsylvania census data, 1865 and 1900," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 14(3), pages 311-331, August.
    19. Angela Greulich & Aurélien Dasre, 2017. "The quality of periodic fertility measures in EU-SILC," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-01726581, HAL.
    20. J. Hacker, 2003. "Rethinking the “early” decline of marital fertility in the united states," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 40(4), pages 605-620, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberhi:0031. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.