Advertisement

When Do Kinsmen Really Help? Examination of Cohort and Parity-Specific Kin Effects on Fertility Behavior. The Case of the Bejsce Parish Register Reconstitution Study, 17th–20th Centuries, Poland

  • Krzysztof Tymicki
Part of the International Studies in Population book series (ISIP, volume 7)

The present study aims to investigate the parity specific effect of kin help on the transition between births among natural and controlled fertility birth cohorts of the Bejsce parish. The hypothesis states that kin help should be of particular importance in the case of higher order births. Thus, kin effects understood as reduction in the costs of childbearing (direct childcare, provision of the resources) or nutritional effects should be of particular importance at higher parities. The analyses are based on the multilevel hazard models of parity transition with kin effects represented by time-constant and time-varying covariates. The data used for the estimation of the models come from the reconstitution of the registers from Bejsce parish located in south-central Poland. The reconstitution covers the period between 1730 and 1968. The results suggest that there was a strong kin effect especially at higher parities. These effects were mostly associated with the presence of nongenerative relatives (grandparents). The analyses reveal only weak differences in the kin effect between natural and controlled fertility regimes.

Keywords

survival family structure Netherlands social class  

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becker, G.S. 1998. A Treatise on Family. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, G.S. and R.J. Barro. 1988. A reformulation of the economic theory of fertility. Quarterly Journal of Economics 103: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beise, J. and E. Voland. 2002. A multilevel event history analysis of the effects of grandmothers on child mortality in a historical German population (Krummhorn, Ostfiesland, 1720–1847). Demographic Research 7: 470–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bereczkei, T. 1998. Kinship network, direct childcare, and fertility among Hungarians and Gypsies. Evolution and Human Behavior 19: 283–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bongaarts, J. 1978. A framework for analysing the proximate determinants of fertility. Population and Development Review 4: 105–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnstein, E., C. Crandall, and S. Kitayama. 1994. Some neo-Darwinian decision rules for altruism: Weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 733–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crognier, E. 2003. Reproductive success: Which meaning? American Journal of Human Biology 15: 352–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crognier, E., A. Baali, and M-K. Hilali. 2001. Do helpers at the nest increase their parents’ reproductive success? American Journal of Human Biology 13: 365–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cumming, D.C., G.D. Wheeler, and V.J. Harber. 1994. Physical activity, nutrition, and reproduction, in K.L. Campbell and J.W. Wood (eds.), Interactions of environment, fertility and behavior, human reproductive ecology, New York Academy of Science, New York, pp. 55–76.Google Scholar
  10. Dunbar, R.I.M. and M. Spoors. 1995. Social networks, support cliques, and kinship. Human Nature 6: 273–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Easterlin, R.A. and E. Crimmins. 1985. The Fertility Revolution. A Supply Demand Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  12. Ford, K. and S. Huffman. 1993. Maternal nutrition, infant feeding and post-partum amenorrhea: Recent evidence from Bangladesh, in R. Gray, H. Leridon, and A. Spira (eds.), Biomedical and demographic determinants of reproduction, Calderon, Oxford, pp. 383–90.Google Scholar
  13. Galloway, P.R., E.A. Hammel, and R.D. Lee. 1994. Fertility decline in Prussia, 1875–1910: A pooled cross-section time series analysis. Population Studies 48: 135–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gintis, H., S. Bowles, R. Boyd, and E. Fehr. 2003. Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior 24: 153–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goody, J. 1983. The Development of Family and Marriage in the Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. Grafen, A. 1984. Natural selection, kin selection and group selection, in J.R. Krebs and N.B. Davies (eds.), Behavioral ecology, 2nd edition, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 5–31.Google Scholar
  17. Hamilton, W.D. 1964. The genetical evolution of social behavior: Part I and Part II. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill, K. and M. Hurtado. 1996. Ache Life History. The Ecology and Demography of Foraging People. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  19. John, A.M. 1993. Statistical evidence on links between maternal nutrition and post-partum infertility, in R. Gray, H. Leridon, and A. Spira (eds.), Biomedical and demographic determinants of reproduction, Calderon, Oxford, pp. 372–82.Google Scholar
  20. Kasakoff, A.B. and J.W. Adams. 1995. The effect of migration on ages at vital rates events: A critique of family reconstitution in historical demography. European Journal of Population 11: 199–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kohler, H-P. and E.A. Hammel. 2001. On the role of families and kinship networks in pre-industrial agricultural societies: An analysis of the 1698 Slavonian census. Journal of Population Economics 14: 21–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kopczynski, M. 1998. Studia Nad Rodzina Chlopska w Koronie w XVII-XVIII Wieku. Studies on the Peasant Family in the Central Districts of Poland in 17th to 18th Century. Wydawnictwo Krupski i S-ka, Warszawa.Google Scholar
  23. Larsen, U. and J.W. Vaupel. 1993. Hutterite fecundability by age and parity: Strategies for frailty modeling of event histories. Demography 30: 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laslett, P. 1988. Family, kinship and collectivity as systems of support in pre-industrial Europe: A consideration of the ‘nuclear-hardship’ hypothesis. Continuity and Change 3: 153–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lillard, L.A. and C.W.A. Panis. 2000. AML Multilevel Mulitprocess Statistical Software, Release 1.0. EconWare, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  26. Livi-Bacci, M. 1999. The Population of Europe. A History. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. Mosley, H.W. 1979. The effects of nutrition on natural fertility, in H. Leridon and J. Menken (eds.), Natural fertility: Patterns and determinants of natural fertility; Proceedings of a seminar on natural fertility, Ordina Editions, Liege, pp. 85–105.Google Scholar
  28. Murphy, M. and L.B. Knudsen. 2002. The intergenerational transmission of fertility in contemporary Denmark: The effects of number of siblings (full and half), birth order, and whether male or female. Population Studies 56: 235–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pebley, A.R., A.I. Hermalin, and J. Knodel. 1991. Birth spacing and infant mortality: Evidence for eighteenth and nineteenth century German villages. Journal of Biosocial Science 23: 445–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Piasecki, E. 1990. Ludnosc Parafii Bejskiej w Swietle Ksiag Metryklanych z XVIII–XX W. Studium Demograficzne (Population of the Bejsce parish [Kielce voivodeship, Poland] in the light of parish registers of the 18th–20th centuries. A demographic study). PWN, Warsaw.Google Scholar
  31. Saito, O. 1996. Historical demography: Achievements and prospects. Population Studies 50: 537–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sear, R., R. Mace, and I. McGregor. 2000. Maternal grandmothers improve nutritional status and survival of children in rural Gambia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 267: 1641–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sear, R., R. Mace, and I. McGregor. 2003. The effects of kin on female fertility in rural Gambia. Evolution and Human Behavior 24: 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stys, W. 1959. Wspolzaleznosc rozwoju rodziny chlopskiej i jej gospodarstwa (The interdependence between family development and peasant economy). Wroclawskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, Wroclaw.Google Scholar
  35. Turke, P.W. 1988. Helpers at the nest: Childcare networks on Infaluk, in L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff-Mulder, and P.W. Turke (eds.), Human reproductive behavior, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 173–88.Google Scholar
  36. Tymicki, K. 2004. The kin influence on female reproductive behavior. The evidence from the reconstitution of Bejsce parish registers, 18th–20th centuries, Poland. American Journal of Human Biology 16: 508–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tymicki, K. 2005. The interplay between infant mortality and subsequent reproductive behavior. Evidence for the replacement effect from historical population of Bejsce parish, 18th–20th centuries, Poland. Historical Social Research 30(3): 240–64.Google Scholar
  38. Vaupel, J.W. and A.I. Yashin. 1985. Heterogeneity’s ruses: Some surprising effects of selection on population dynamics. The American Statistician 39: 176–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Voland, E. 2000. Contributions of family reconstitution studies to evolutionary reproductive ecology. Evolutionary Anthropology 9: 134–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Weisner, T.S. and R. Gallimore. 1977. My brother’s keeper: Child and sibling caretaking. Current Anthropology 18: 169–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krzysztof Tymicki
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Statistics and DemographyWarsaw School of EconomicsPoland

Personalised recommendations