AbstractEconomists frequently hypothesize that industrialization contributed to the United States’ nineteenth-century fertility decline. I exploit the circumstances surrounding industrialization in South Carolina between 1881 and 1900 to show that the establishment of textile mills coincided with a 6–10 percent fertility reduction. Migrating households are responsible for most of the observed decline. Higher rates of textile employment and child mortality for migrants can explain part of the result, and I conjecture that an increase in child-raising costs induced by the separation of migrant households from their extended families may explain the remaining gap in migrant-native fertility. Show ReferencesAtack, Jeremy, al, et. “Did Railroads Induce or Follow Economic Growth? Urbanization and Population Growth in the American Midwest, 1850–1860.” Social Science History 34, no. 2 (2010): 171–97.Google Scholar Beakley, Hoyt, and Lin, Jeffrey. “Portage: Path Dependence and Increasing Returns in U.S. History.” Forthcoming in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2012.Google Scholar Becker, Sascha O., Hornung, Erik, and Woessmann, Ludger. “Education and Catch-Up in the Industrial Revolution.” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, forthcoming.Google Scholar Brown, John C., and Timothy, W. Guinnane. “Fertility Transition in a Rural, Catholic Population: Bavaria, 1880–1910.” Population Studies 56, no. 1 (2002): 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Carlton, David L.Mill and Town in South Carolina: 1880–1920. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1982.Google Scholar Carter, Susan B., Ransom, Roger L., and Sutch, Richard. “Family Matters: The Life-Cycle Transition and the Unparallelled Antebellum American Fertility Decline.” In History Matters: Essays on Economic Growth, Technology, and Demographic Change, edited by Guinnane, Timothy W., Sundstrom, William A., and Whatley, Warren, 271–327. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar Crafts, N.F. R.“Duration of Marriage, Fertility, and Women's Employment Opportunities in England and Wales in 1911.” Population Studies 43, no. 2 (1989): 325–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar David, Paul, and Sundstrom, William. “Old-Age Security Motives, Labor Markets, and Farm Family Fertility in Antebellum America.” Explorations in Economic History 25, no. 2 (1988): 164–97.Google Scholar Davison's Textile Blue Book. Ridgewood, NJ, various years.Google Scholar Doepke, Matthias. “Accounting for Fertility Decline During the Transition to Growth.” Journal of Economic Growth 9, no. 3 (2004): 347–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Doepke, Matthias. “Child Mortality and Fertility Decline: Does the Barro-Becker Model Fit the Facts?” Journal of Population Economics 18, no. 2 (2005): 337–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Easterlin, Richard A.“Does Human Fertility Adjust to the Environment?” The American Economic Review 61, no. 2 (1971): 399–407.Google Scholar Easterlin, Richard A.“Factors in the Decline of Farm Family Fertility in the United States: Some Preliminary Research Results.” Journal of American History 63, no. 3 (1976): 600–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Galor, Oded, and David, N. Weil. “The Gender Gap, Fertility, and Growth.” American Economic Review 86, no. 3 (1996): 375–87.Google Scholar Galor, Oded, and David, N. Weil. “Population, Technology, and Growth: From Malthusian Stagnation to the Demographic Transition and Beyond.” American Economic Review 90, no. 4 (2000): 806–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Guest, Avery M.“Social Structure and U.S. Inter-State Fertility Differentials in 1900.” Demography 18, no. 4 (1981): 465–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Guinnane, Timothy W.“The Historical Fertility Transition and Theories of Long-Run Growth: A Guide for Economists.” Journal of Economic Literature, forthcoming.Google Scholar Haines, Michael R. “Economic History and Historical Demography: Past, Present, and Future.” In The Future of Economics, edited by Field, Alexander J., 185–253. Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995.Google Scholar Haines, Michael R. “The White Population of the United States, 1790–1920.” In A Population History of North America, edited by Haines, Michael and Steckel, Richard, 305–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar Hazan, Moshe, and Berdugo, Binyamin. “Child Labor, Fertility, and Economic Growth.” The Economic Journal 112, no. 482 (2002): 810–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Kalelmi-Ozcan, Sebnem. “A Stochastic Model of Mortality, Fertility, and Human Capital Investment.” Journal of Development Economics 70, no. 1 (2003): 103–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Kögel, Tomas, and Prskawetz, Alexia. “Agricultural Productivity Growth and the Escape from the Malthusian Trap.” Journal of Economic Growth 6, no. 4 (2001): 337–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Lagerlö, Nils-Petter. “Gender Equality and Long-Run Growth.” Journal of Economic Growth 8, no. 4 (2002): 403–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Moehling, Carolyn M.“State Child Labor Laws and the Decline of Child Labor.” Explorations in Economic History 36, no. 1 (1999): 72–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Moehling, Carolyn M.“Broken Homes: The ‘Missing’ Children of the 1910 Census.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 33, no. 2 (2002): 205–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar North Atlantic Population Project and Minnesota Population Center. NAPP: Complete Count Microdata. NAPP Version 2.0 [computer files]. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center [distributor], 2008.Google Scholar Preston, Sameul H., Lim, Suet, and Philip Morgan, S.. “African American Marriage in 1910: Beneath the Surface of Census Data.” Demography 29, no. 1 (1992): 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ruggles, Steven, al, et. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 4.0 (Machine-Readable Database). Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center. 2008.Google Scholar Sah, Raaj K.“The Effects of Child Mortality Changes on Fertility Choice and Parental Welfare.” Journal of Political Economy 99, no. 3 (1991): 582–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Sanderson, Warren. “Quantitative Aspects of Marriage, Fertility, and Family Limitation in Nineteenth-Century America: Another Application of the Coale Specifications.” Demography 16, no. 3 (1979): 339–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Schapiro, Morton O.“Land Availability and Fertility in the United States, 1760–1870.” The Journal of Economic History 42, no. 3 (1982): 577–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Schultz, T. Paul. “Changing World Prices, Women's Wages, and the Fertility Transition: Sweden, 1860–1910.” Journal of Political Economy 93, no. 6 (1985): 1126–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Steckel, Richard H. “The Fertility Transition in the United States: Tests of Alternative Hypotheses.” In Strategic Factors in Nineteenth-Century American Economic History, edited by Goldin, Claudia and Rockoff, Hugh, 351–74. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.Google Scholar Stover, John R.The Railroads of the South, 1865–1900. Chapel Hill: North Carolina University Press, 1955.Google Scholar Tamura, Robert. “Human Capital and the Switch from Agriculture to Industry.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 27, no. 2 (2002): 207–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Tang, Anthony M.Economic Development in the Southern Piedmont, 1860–1950: Its Impact on Agriculture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1958.Google Scholar Thompson, Holland. From the Cotton Field to the Cotton Mill: A Study of the Industrial Transition in North Carolina. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1906.Google Scholar Todd, Petra E. “Matching Estimators.” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition, edited by Durlauf, Steven N. and Lawrence, E. Blume. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008 (http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_M000365, accessed 09 December 2011).Google Scholar United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Tenth Census of the United States, 1880. Washington, DC: GPO, 1880.Google Scholar United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Twelfth Census of the United States, 1900. Washington, DC: GPO, 1900.Google Scholar United States of America, Bureau of the Census. Index to the 1900 United States Federal Census. Digital copy of original records in the National Archives, Washington DC. Available at http://www.ancestry.com, subscription database, 2008.Google Scholar United States Bureau of Labor. Report on Condition of Woman and Child Wage-Earners in the United States. Washington, DC: GPO, 1910.Google Scholar United States Commissioner of Labor. Seventh Annual Report. Cost of Production: The Textiles and Glass. Washington, DC: GPO, 1892.Google Scholar Vinovskis, Maris. “Socioeconomic Determinants of Interstate Fertility Differentials in the United States in 1850 and 1860.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 6, no. 3 (1976): 375–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Wahl, Jenny Bourne. “Trading Quantity for Quality: Explaining the Decline in American Fertility in the Nineteenth Century.” In Strategic Factors in Nineteenth-Century American Economic History, edited by Goldin, Claudia and Rockoff, Hugh, 375–97. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.Google Scholar Wright, Gavin. “Cheap Labor and Southern Textiles Before 1880.” The Journal of Economic History 39, no. 3 (1979): 655–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Yasuba, Yasukichi. Birth Rates of the White Population in the United States, 1800–1860: An Economic Study. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962.Google Scholar What are 5 causes of the Industrial Revolution?Many different factors contributed to the rise of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. The new inventions, access to raw materials, trade routes and partners, social changes, and a stable government all paved the way for Britain to become an industry-driven country.
How did industrialization impact the nineteenth century world economy?The Industrial Revolution transformed economies that had been based on agriculture and handicrafts into economies based on large-scale industry, mechanized manufacturing, and the factory system. New machines, new power sources, and new ways of organizing work made existing industries more productive and efficient.
How did the Industrial Revolution affect women's rights activists?Industrialization brought new opportunities for employment, changing ideas of work, and economic cycles of boom and bust. During this period, women's roles changed dramatically. Industrialization redefined the role of women in the home, at the same time opening new opportunities for them as industrial wage earners.
What caused the Industrial Revolution?Historians have identified several causes for the Industrial Revolution, including: the emergence of capitalism, European imperialism, efforts to mine coal, and the effects of the Agricultural Revolution.
|
