Abstract
To better understand the forces underlying fertility decisions, we look at the forerunners of fertility decline. In Rouen, France, completed fertility dropped between 1640 and 1792 from 7.4 to 4.2 children. We review possible explanations and keep only three: increases in materialism, in women’s empowerment, and in returns to education. The methodology is one of analytic narrative, bringing together descriptive evidence with a theoretical model. We accordingly propose a theory showing that we can discriminate between these explanations by looking at childlessness and its social gradient. An increase in materialism or, under certain conditions, in women’s empowerment, leads to an increase in childlessness, while an increase in the return to education leads to a decrease in childlessness. Looking at the Rouen data, childlessness was clearly on the rise, from 4% in 1640 to 10% at the end of the eighteenth century, which appears to discredit the explanation based on increasing returns to education, at least for this period.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Very similar pictures could be presented for other developed countries.
This trade-off between the number of children and their survival was recognized as early as 1837: “ces essaims d’enfans ne rendent que plus impossibles les soins indispensables pour leur assurer pleine vie.” (D’Ivernois 1836).
It was overtaken by Lyon and Marseilles around 1700, see data in Bairoch et al. (1988).
The aggregate results are detailed in the book by Bardet (1983), but the original individual data are not made available by the author.
Natural fertility does not tend to vary much across populations (see Werner (1986) and Coleman (1996)). However, sterility can be affected by venereal diseases or health problems due to abortion (Szreter 1996) Consequently, a share of sterility due to venereal diseases could come from prostitutes and could be higher in cities with numerous soldiers or sailors.
The number of deaths of children under one year old observed in the city divided by the number of births.
From page 255 of Bardet (1983), the mean age at first marriage for women with a known birth certificate is: 1670–1699: 24.4, 1700–1729: 26.2, 1730–1759: 24.9, and 1760–1789: 26.1.
Marie-Anne Lepage, born in Rouen, married to Fiquet du Bocage, in 1768; Madame de l’Etoile (born in Rouen) in 1770 and 1771; Madame de Courcy in 1774; and Julie d’Assier de la Chassagne comtesse de Laurencin in 1774 and 1777.
Jeanne Bisson de la Courdraye, Anne de la Roche Guilhem, Jeanne Marie le Prince de Beaumont, Marie Caroline Delabarre, and Louise Cavelier. The first four can be found in the Index Biobliographicus Notorum Hominum, the last one in Briquet (1804).
Divorce, however, became illegal again in 1816, and people wanting to divorce had to wait until 1884 when a new divorce law was passed. See de la Croix and Mariani (2015) for a political economy theory of the adoption of divorce laws in Western Europe.
Until the seventeenth century, noblemen assumed positions of command (regardless of their competence). Over the period 1600–1700, armies grew considerably in size, requiring more competent officers. For instance, in 1675, Louis XIV made power dependent on merit and seniority (rather than on social class or birth).
Superior goods make up a larger proportion of spending as income rises. Here, because of the constant term \({\bar{x}}\), \(x_{ij}\) is not consumed at all for low level of incomes, while becomes consumed once income is above a certain threshold. Notice, however, from "Appendix A” that the income-elasticity of its demand is not strictly larger than one for any level of income.
In general, this is true as long as substitution effects dominate income effects.
Such a postponement-driven childlessness has an involuntary component in the sense that the couple would have preferred to still be fertile, but has a voluntary component too, as, by postponing, the couple accepted to lower its probability to be able to procreate.
It is interesting to note that in de la Croix (2012), p. 48–65, the early drop in fertility in Rouen is related to the rise in the return to schooling. Yet, at the time, de la Croix did not look at childlessness, which would have discredited this mechanism.
References
Aaronson D, Lange F, Mazumder B (2014) Fertility transitions along the extensive and intensive margins. Am Econ Rev 104(11):3701–3724
Adsera A (2006) Marital fertility and religion in Spain, 1985 and 1999. Popul Stud 60(2):205–221
Ariès P (1960) L’enfant et la vie familiale sous l’ancien régime. Plon, Paris
Ariès P (1980) Two successive motivations for the declining birth rate in the west. Popul Dev Rev 6:645–650
Bairoch P, Batou J, Chèvre P (1988) The population of European cities from 800 to 1850. CIEH, Genève
Bar M, Leukhina O (2010) Demographic transition and industrial revolution: a macroeconomic investigation. Rev Econ Dyn 13(2):424–451
Bardet J-P (1983) Rouen au XVII\(^e\) et XVIII\(^e\) siècles. SEDES, Paris
Bardet J-P (1998) La France en déclin. In: Bardet J-P, Dupâquier J (eds) Histoire des populations de l’Europe, tome 2: la révolution démographique 1750–1914. Fayard, Paris, pp 287–325
Bardet J-P, Dupâquier J (1986) Contraception, les Français, les premiers, mais pourquoi ? Communication 44:3–34
Bardet J-P, Van de Walle E (2000) À propos de l’article de Rudolf Binion. Marianne au foyer. Révolution politique et transition démographique en France et aux États-Unis. Population 55(2):387–394
Baudin T (2012) The optimal trade-off between quality and quantity with unknown number of survivors. Math Popul Stud 19(2):94–113
Baudin T (2015) Religion and fertility: the French connection. Demogr Res 32:397–420
Baudin T, de la Croix D, Gobbi PE (2015) Fertility and childlessness in the US. Am Econ Rev 105:1852–1882
Baudin T, de la Croix D, Gobbi PE (2017) Endogenous childlessness and stages of development. CEPR discussion paper
Baulant M (1971) Le salaire des ouvriers du bâtiment à Paris, de 1400 à 1726. Ann Econ Soc Civilis 26(2):463–483
Becker G (1960) An economic analysis of fertility. In: Demographic and economic change in developed countries, NBER chapters, 209–240. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc
Becker G (1993) The economic way of looking at behavior. J Polit Econ 101(3):385–409
Berman E, Iannaccone LR, Ragusa G (2012) From empty pews to empty cradles: fertility decline among European catholics. Technical Report 18350, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc
Binion R (2000) Marianne au foyer. Révolution politique et transition démographique en France et aux États-Unis. Population 55(1):81–104
Boudon JO (2001) Paris, capitale religieuse sous le second Empire. Cerf, Paris
Brée S (2017) Paris l’inféconde, La limitation des naissances en région parisienne au XIXe siècle. INED, Paris
Brée S, Eggerickx T, Sanderson J-P (2017) Low fertility, childlessness and family changes during the first half of the twentieth century in France and Belgium. Quetelet J 5(1):7–31
Briquet F (1804) Dictionnaire historique, littéraire et bibliographique des Françaises, et des étrangères naturalisées en France, connues par leurs écrits ou par la protection qu’elles ont accordée aux gens de lettres, depuis l’établissement de la monarchie jusqu’ à nos jours. De Gillé, Paris
Bruckner J (1768) A philosophical survey of the animal creation, an essay. Johnson and Payne, London (translated from the French)
Caldwell JC (1976) Toward a restatement of demographic transition theory. Popul Dev Rev 2:321–366
Caldwell JC (1981) The mechanisms of demographic change in historical perspective. Popul Stud 35:5–27
Caldwell JC (1982) Theory of fertility decline. Population and social structure. Academic Press, London
Carlsson G (1966) The decline of fertility: innovation or adjustment process. Popul Stud 20(2):149–174
Cavalcanti T, Parente S, Zhao R (2007) Religion in macroeconomics: a quantitative analysis of Weber’s thesis. Econ Theor 32(1):105–123
Chaunu P, Foisil M, de Noirfontaine F (1998) Le basculement religieux de Paris au XVIIIe siècle : essai d’histoire politique et religieuse. Fayard, Paris
Cinnirella F, Klemp M, Weisdorf J (2017) Malthus in the bedroom: birth spacing as birth control in pre-transition England. Demography 54:413–436
Coleman D (ed) (1996) Europe’s population in the 1990s. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Collier A (2007) The humble little condom: a history. Prometheus Books, New York
Cummins N (2012) Marital fertility and wealth during the fertility transition: rural France, 1750–1850. Econ Hist Rev 66:449–476
d’Albis H, Greulich A, Ponthiere G (2017) Development, fertility and childbearing age: a unified growth theory. mimeo
De Vries J (2008) The industrious revolution: consumer behavior and the household economy, 1650 to the present. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
De Jong GF, Sell RR (1977) Changes in childlessness in the United States: a demographic path analysis. Popul Stud 31:129–141
de la Croix D (2012) Fertility, education, growth, and sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
de la Croix D, Delavallade C (2017) Religions, fertility, and growth in South-East Asia. Int Econ Rev (forthcoming)
de la Croix D, Licandro O (2015) The longevity of famous people from Hammurabi to Einstein. J Econ Growth 20:263–303
de la Croix D, Mariani F (2015) From polygyny to serial monogamy: a unified theory of marriage institutions. Rev Econ Stud 82(2):565–607
de la Croix D, Schneider E (2017) Decessit sine Prole—childlessness, celibacy, and survival of the richest in pre-industrial England. CEPR Working Paper
de la Croix D, Vander Donckt M (2010) Would empowering women initiate the demographic transition in least-developed countries? J Hum Cap 4:85–129
D’Ivernois SF (1836) Sur la Fécondité et la Mortalié Proportionnelles des Peuples Considérées comme Mesure de leur Aisance et de leur Civilisation. Imprimerie de la Bibliothèque Universelle, Genève
Doepke M (2005) Child mortality and fertility decline: Does the Barro-Becker model fit the facts? J Popul Econ 18(2):337–366 (06)
Doepke M (2015) Gary Becker on the quantity and quality of children. J Demogr Econ 81:59–66
Dottelonde-Rivoallan V (2001) Le coucours de Poésie de l’Académie de l’Immaculée Conception à Rouen 17011789. Université de Rouen, Rouen
Flandrin J-L (1973) L’attitude à l’égard du petit enfant et les conduites sexuelles dans la civilisation occidentale: structures anciennes et évolution. Annales de démographie historique 1973(1):143–210
Fleury M, Henry L (1956) Des registres paroissiaux á l’histoire de la population. Manuel de dpouillement et d’exploitation de l’état civil ancien, Paris
Fuch R (1992) Poor and pregnant in Paris. Rutgers University Press, Brunswick
Galor O (2012) The demographic transition: causes and consequences. Cliometrica 6:1–28
Galor O, Klemp M (2017) The biocultural origins of human capital formation (unpublished)
Gobbi PE (2013) A model of voluntary childlessness. J Popul Econ 26(3):963–982
Gobbi PE, Goñi M (2016) Childless aristocrats. Fertility, inheritance, and persistent inequality in Britain (1550–1950) (unpublished)
Greenwood J, Guner N (2010) Social change: the sexual revolution. Int Econ Rev 51(4):893–923
Greenwood J, Seshadri A, Vandenbroucke G (2005) The baby boom and baby bust. Am Econ Rev 95(1):183–207
Guzmán RA, Weisdorf J (2010) Product variety and the demographic transition. Econ Lett 107(1):74–76
Hagestad G, Call V (2007) Pathways to childlessness: a life course perspective. J Fam Issues 28:1331–1361
Hajnal J (1965) European marriage patterns in perspective. In: Eversley DE, Glass DV (eds) Population in history: essays in historical demography. Chicago Illinois Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, pp 101–143
Herval R (1949) Histoire de Rouen, tome II, du XVIe siècle à nos jours. Maugard, Rouen
Jacquemet G (1984) Belleville au XIXe siècle. EHESS, Paris
Klemp M, Weisdorf J (2016) Fecundity, fertility and the formation of human capital (unpublished)
Landry A (1934) La révolution démographique: études et essaies sur les problèmes de population. INED, Paris (reedited 1982)
Laroulandie F (1997) Les ouvriers de Paris au XIXe siècle. Christian, Paris
Le Bras H (1986) Coït interrompu, contrainte morale et héritage préférentiel. Communications 44(1):47–70
Lee R (2015) Becker and the demographic transition. J Demogr Econ 81:67–74
Lesthaeghe R, Wilson C (1986) Modes of production secularization and the pace of the fertility decline in Western Europe 1870–1930. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Livi-Bacci M (1986) Social group forerunners of fertility control in Europe. In: Coale A, Watkin SC (eds) The decline of fertility in Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 182–200
Maddison A (2001) The world economy: a millennial perspective. Development centre studies. OECD, Paris
Maddison A (2010) Historical statistics, Groningen growth and development center
Mattessich PW (1979) Childlessness and its correlates in historical perspective: a research note. J Family Hist 4:299–307
McLaren A (1990) A history of contraception: from antiquity to the present day. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge
McQuillan K (2004) When does religion influence fertility? Popul Dev Rev 30(1):25–56
McQuillan K (2006) The evolution of religious differences in fertility: Lutherans and Catholics in Alsace, 1750–1860. In: Derosas R, van Poppel F (eds) Religion and the decline of fertility in the western world. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 133–146
Morgan PS (1991) Late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century childlessness. Am J Soc 97:779–807
Perrenoud A (1974) Malthusianisme et protestantisme: un modèle démographique wébérien. Ann Econ Soc Civil 29(4):975–988
Perrin F (2013) Gender equality and economic growth in the long-run: a cliometric analysis. Ph.D. diss., Université de Strasbourg; Scuola superiore Sant’Anna di studi universitari e di perfezionamento (Pisa, Italy)
Phillips R (1976) Demographic aspects of divorce in Rouen, 1792–1816. Ann Demogr Hist 429–441
Poston DL, Trent K (1982) International variability in childlessness: a descriptive and analytical study. J Fam Issues 3:473–491
Praz A-F (2005) De l’enfant utile à l’enfant prćieux - Filles et garçons dans les cantons de Vaud et Fribourg, 1860 et 1930. Lausanne: Antipodes
Praz A-F (2006) State institutions as mediators between religion and fertility : a comparison of two Swiss regions, 1860–1930. In: Derosas R, Van Poppel F (eds) Religion and the decline of fertility in the Western World. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 147–176
Reher DS (2004) The demographic transition revisited as a global process. Popul Space Place 10(1):19–41
Rowland DT (2007) Historical trends in childlessness. J Fam Issues 28(10):1311–1337
Sander W (1992) Catholicism and the economics of fertility. Popul Stud J Demogr 46:477–489
Seccombe W (1992) Men’s ’marital rights’ and women’s ’ wifely duties’: changing conjugal relations in the fertility decline. In: Gillis J, Tilly L, Levine D (eds) The European experience of declining fertility 1850–1970. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp 66–84
Spencer GK (1983) Childlessness and one-child fertility: a comparative and historical analysis of international data. Ph.D. diss. University of California, Berkeley
Szreter S (1996) Fertility, class and gender in Britain, 1860–1940. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Thompson WS (1929) Population. Am Soc Rev 34(6):959–975
Van de Walle E, Van de Walle F (1972) Allaitement, stérilité et contraception: les opinions jusqu’au XIXe siècle. Population 27(4):685–701
Van Bavel J (2004) Detecting stopping and spacing behaviour in historical demography. A critical review of methods. Population (English edition) 1:117–128
Van Bavel J (2010) Subreplacement fertility in the West before the baby boom: past and current perspectives. Popul Stud 64(1):1–18
Van Bavel J, Kok J (2010) Pioneers of the modern life style? Childless couples in early twentieth century Netherlands. Soc Sci Hist 34:47–72
Vénard A, Ariès P (1954) Deux contributions à l’histoire des pratiques contraceptives : I. Saint François de Sales et Thomas Sanchez. II. Chaucer et Madame de Sévigné. Population 9(4):683–698
Voigtländer N, Voth H-J (2013) The three horsemen of riches: plague, war, and urbanization in early modern Europe. Rev Econ Stud 80(2):774–811
Werner B (1986) Trends in first, second, third and later births. Popul Trends 45:26–33
Wu L, Dutta R, Levine DK, Papageorge NW (2013) Entertaining Malthus: bread, circuses and economic growth. mimeo
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support of the project ARC 15/19-063 of the Belgian French-speaking Community. We thank Jean-Pierre Bardet, Paula E. Gobbi, and two referees for comments on an earlier draft.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A: Solving the model
Using \(s_{ij}=n_{ij} h_{ij}\), the utility can be rewritten:
The household maximizes utility subject to her budget constraint,
and the non-negativity constraints:
Three regimes are possible: the interior regime with \(x_{ij},\;n_{ij}>0\), a Malthusian regime with no luxuries and \(x_{ij}=0,\;n_{ij}>0\), and a child-free regime \(x_{ij}>0,\;n_{ij}=0\).
Interior Regime We start with the interior regime with both \(x_{ij}\) and \(n_{ij}\) positive. In that case, the first-order conditions can be solved as:
where
is a monotonic transformation of the relative cost of quantity \( p_n\) over quality.
The demand for superior goods \(x_i\) is decreasing in its price \(p_x\) and increasing in the cost of children quantity \( p_n\). The demand for quality \(h_i\) only depends on its cost relative to quantity and is thus a positive function of the price \(p_n\). It does not depend on the price of luxuries \(p_x\).
Fertility, i.e., the demand for quantity of children \(n_i\), depends positively on income \(\omega _j\) for given \(p_n\). If the cost of children is a time cost, \( p_n\) is proportional to income, say \( p_n=\phi \omega _j\). In that case, fertility varies negatively with income. Moreover,
Proposition 1
Fertility in the interior regime decreases in its own price \(p_n\), increases with the price of the superior good \(p_x\), and decreases with the return to education \(\beta \) if and only if
The indirect utility is this regime is:
Child-free regime Now consider the regime where the household is childless and consumes superior goods. In that case, \(x_i=\omega _j/p\), \(n_i=0\) and \(h_i=0\). The indirect utility is:
Malthusian regime Finally, consider the regime where the household does not consume superior goods: \(x_i=0\). In that case, the first-order conditions can be written as:
And the indirect utility function is:
In this regime, we have:
Proposition 2
Fertility in the Malthusian regime is unaffected by the price of the superior goods \(p_x\) and decreases with its own price \(p_n\) and with the return to education \(\beta \).
From the comparisons of the indirect utilities, we can infer bounds on \(\gamma _i\) delimiting the different regimes.
Proposition 3
There exists
with \({\tilde{\gamma }}_j<{\hat{\gamma }}\), such that:
-
1.
if \(\gamma _i<{\tilde{\gamma }}_j\), \(x_{ij}>0\) and \(n_{ij}=0\)(child-free regime),
-
2.
if \({\tilde{\gamma }}_j \le \gamma _i\le {\hat{\gamma }}\), \(x_{ij}>0\) and \(n_{ij}>0\) (interior regime),
-
3.
if \({\hat{\gamma }}<\gamma _i\), \(x_{ij}=0\) and \(n_{ij}>0\)(Malthusian regime).
Proof
From Eq. (5), \(\gamma _i\) needs to be larger than \( {\tilde{\gamma }}\) for \(x_i\) to be positive. Moreover, the difference \(V_{ij}-W_j\) is given by:
The derivative of this difference with respect to \(\gamma _i\) is
At the point \(\gamma _i={\tilde{\gamma }}\), the indirect utilities are equal: \(V_{ij}=W_j\). When \(\gamma _i\) increases above \({\tilde{\gamma }}\), \(V_{ij}\) increases and \(W_j\) stays constant; hence, the interior regime dominates the corner regime \(x_i=0\) for all \(\gamma _i>{\tilde{\gamma }}\).
From Eq. (4), \(\gamma _i\) needs to be larger than \( {\hat{\gamma }}\) for \(n_i\) to be positive. Moreover, the difference \(V_{ij}-Z_{ij}\) is given by:
The derivative of this difference with respect to \(\gamma _i\) is
At the point \(\gamma _i={\hat{\gamma }}\), the indirect utilities are equal: \(V_{ij}=Z_{ij}\). When \(\gamma _i\) decreases below \({\tilde{\gamma }}\), \(V_{ij}-Z_{ij}\) increases, hence the interior regime dominates the corner regime \(n_i=0\) for all \(\gamma _i<{\hat{\gamma }}\). \(\square \)
Figure 2 plots the two thresholds \({\hat{\gamma }}\) and \({\tilde{\gamma }}\) as a function of \(\gamma _i\) and \(\omega _j\).
The childlessness rate \(\chi \) in the economy is given by:
where \(F(\cdot )\) is the cumulative distribution function of \(\gamma _i\). Hence, when there exogenous changes in parameters, childlessness varies in the same direction as \({\tilde{\gamma }}\).
Proposition 4
The childlessness rate \(F({\tilde{\gamma }})\) increases with the price \(p_n\) and decreases with the price of luxuries \(p_x\). It decreases with the return to education \(\beta \) if and only if:
i.e., when \(p_n\) is not too large.
Proof
Let us compute
The proposition follows. \(\square \)
Appendix B: Robustness to the introduction of a basic consumption good
We introduce a consumption good \(c_{ij}\) and show how the main equations are altered.
Utility is now:
The budget constraint is
Interior regime
The solution is:
where
The indirect utility is this regime is:
Child-free regime
The indirect utility is:
Malthusian regime
The first-order conditions can be written as:
And the indirect utility function is:
It remains true that there exists
with \({\tilde{\gamma }}_j<{\hat{\gamma }}\), such that:
-
1.
if \(\gamma _i<{\tilde{\gamma }}_j\), \(x_{ij}>0\) and \(n_{ij}=0\) (child-free regime),
-
2.
if \({\tilde{\gamma }}_j \le \gamma _i\le {\hat{\gamma }}\), \(x_{ij}>0\) and \(n_{ij}>0\) (interior regime),
-
3.
if \({\hat{\gamma }}<\gamma _i\), \(x_{ij}=0\) and \(n_{ij}>0\) (Malthusian regime).
And it remains true that the childlessness rate \(F({\tilde{\gamma }})\) increases with the price \(p_n\) and decreases with the price of luxuries \(p_x\). It decreases with the return to education \(\beta \) if and only if:
i.e., when \(p_n\) is not too large.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brée, S., de la Croix, D. Key forces behind the decline of fertility: lessons from childlessness in Rouen before the industrial revolution. Cliometrica 13, 25–54 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-017-0166-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11698-017-0166-9