We propose to examine the Easterlin-Pirc hypothesis by analyzing family reconstitution records (thus, longitudinal data) from a region of Slavonia just west of where Pirc worked, but c. 1720-1850. In 1683-91 this region was denuded of 80\% of its population as the Austrians ejected the Ottomans from it. From 1691-1750 new migrants flooded into the area, where land was abundant. By 1821 land shortage was a state concern. We detect signals of aggregate fertility limitation and decline starting c. 1780. This is as early as in France but occurred not in a (then) modernizing economy, rather in one that was reverting to medieval feudal institutions. Studies of short term fluctuations 1760-1860 also show negative effects of increased prices or harvest shortages on fertility. Ethnographic sources indicate that the mechanism of limitation was abortion.
Of course, aggregate fertility decline can be affected by the differential fertility of in-migrants or out-migrants. For example, fertility decline in families could be entirely obscured in the aggregate by continuing inflows of high fertility migrants. In this paper we examine whether fertility declines {\em in family lines} as the Easterlin and Pirc hypotheses would suggest.
Land inheritance in this culture at this time was strictly patrilineal and agnatic; females did not inherit or transmit land. Thus land shortage would have been felt in the patrilineage.
We expect that, if the Easterlin-Pirc hypotheses are correct, identifiable patrilineages will show declining fertility over time, net of any period influences such as wars or epidemics that might have affected family formation. We may also expect that succeeding patrilineages founded by new immigrants will exhibit a decline in initial, entrance level, fertility. These two hypotheses are motivated by the expectation that (1) a resident patrilineage will decrease its fertility as its land resources become more constrained, and (2) incoming migrants will also reduce their fertility somewhat as they perceive the land constraint.
We explore three methods of analysis. The first simply identifies chains of fathers in baptismal records and counts the numbers of men at each generation in such a chain. Each such set have a common father and are thus brothers. The intergenerational ratios are successive male NRRs, net of linkage failures. This method will pick up men who are fathers even if their marriage records have not been linked, but it will include some men who are in-migrants and married prior to arrival in the catchment area.
The second method is similar but uses only males with known marriage records. None of these men are in-migrants. Those with well-defined dates of the end of marriage are not out-migrants, but some of those for whom the ending date of the marriage is unknown may be out-migrants.
The third method is similar to the second but utilizes the DRAT measure of individual level fertility (Boulier and Rosenzweig, 1978) for the first wives of men in patrilineal chains. This method focuses on the family units in which we would expect fertility planning to be most apparent.
Sons fathered by 1st generation | Average number of sons fathered by 2nd generation | Number of patrilines |
---|---|---|
1 | 3.67 | 163 |
2 | 1.98 | 200 |
3 | 1.31 | 214 |
4 | 0.97 | 219 |
5 | 0.80 | 145 |
6 | 0.73 | 116 |
7 | 0.62 | 52 |
8 | 0.58 | 24 |
9 | 0.38 | 10 |
10 | 0.80 | 1 |
11 | 0.64 | 1 |