Picking winners? The effect of birth order and migration on parental human capital investments in pre-modern England

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame — the usual design — would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Abstract

How did families in pre-modern Europe structure their investments in the education and skills of their children? The dynamics of human capital formation prior to industrialization, particularly the so-called quantity–quality trade-off, have a central role in endogenous growth theories in which parents' investments in their children help generate the emergence of sustained economic growth (Galor and Weil 1999; Klemp and Weisdorf 2012). These analyses build on one of the key predictions of Becker's household economics: an inverse relationship between family size and investment in the human capital of children (Becker et al. 1960; Becker and Lewis 1973; Becker and Tomes 1979, 1986). Empirical studies of this prediction using modern data generate mixed results: some find that children in smaller families receive greater parental investments, while others report that large differences between earlier and later-born children are of greater significance (Behrman and Taubman 1986; Kessler 1991; Hanushek 1992; Black et al. 2005). Recent studies suggest that smaller family size led to greater investment in human capital formation in both pre-industrial England and elsewhere (Becker et al. 2010; Fernihough 2011; Klemp and Weisdorf 2012). Little is known about the distribution of investments in human capital between children, however. For pre-industrial families contemplating investing in the skills of their children, the question was about much more that simply how much to invest in their children. Given the large private costs associated with education and training, an important consideration was which child would receive the investment. Families' answers to this question have broad implications for the efficiency of human capital investments in this period. If human capital investment was dictated by seniority, whereby older siblings inherit the land while younger siblings receive education, then we would expect poorer long-term outcomes than if investment decisions were allocated by aptitude and interest.1 Families would also want to take into account the effect of providing training on the long-term economic relationship they would have with their children. Departure from the family home for a period of service or training could mean permanent departure from the family's economic sphere, increasing the risk of “nuclear hardship” for parents as they aged (Laslett 1988; Bouman et al. 2012). As Wall (1978) documented, the majority of children in early modern England above the age of 15 had left their parental home. The decade between departure and marriage was a key stage in the economic development of youths. Residence in another household, as a servant or apprentice, provided experience, training, savings, and for some the potential to develop professional and commercial networks (Kussmaul 1981; Ben-Amos 1988; Wallis 2008; Minns and Wallis 2012). It also plays a leading part in explaining the European Marriage Pattern (Hajnal 1965, 1982; De Moor and van Zanden 2010). Youths who left well-off households to train, marry, and establish new households may even have carried the seeds of economic growth themselves, through the values and patterns of behaviour transmitted from middle-class and upper-class parents (Clark 2007). Given the potential importance of how families allocated opportunities between children, it is surprising how little is known about the process in historical settings. Differences in the way families raised male and female children leave no doubt that all children were not treated equally. Female literacy was uniformly lower than male literacy, while at most one in twenty apprentices was female (Burnette 2008). For male children, inheritance customs often differentiated between eldest and younger sons, implying that other investments might also differ. Yet while scholars of early modern Europe have extensively debated the extent, process, and economic and social effects of primogeniture (Goody et al. 1976; Erickson 1993; Birdwell-Pheasant 1998; Landes 2003; Sabean and Teuscher 2007; Bonfield 2010), much less has been written on whether birth order was an important determinant of how opportunities other than the inheritance of agricultural land and office were determined, how it affected social reproduction outside the elite, and its relative importance outside rural society (although see Johnson and Sabean 2011). Similarly, the literature on adolescent service generally takes youths as a relatively homogenous group, distinguished by resources and status, but not by birth parity, and says little about how family dynamics affected youths' prospects.2 Among the English landed elite, it is clear that birth order strongly affected educational opportunities (Thirsk 1969; Pollock 1989; Wallis and Webb 2011). For eldest gentry sons, university and legal training dominate. Few were apprenticed. The share of second-born sons apprenticed is more than double that of eldest sons, and nearly doubles again among sons born fourth or higher (Figure 1, see Wallis and Webb 2011 for more details on this database). However, this evidence provides only a limited window into how departure and economic investments were related to the structure and characteristics of the household, and tells us nothing about practices in other sections of society. Primogeniture was not, after all, universally adopted in England, and even when it was, the devolution of resources between generations often provided substantial provision for non-heirs. Urban inheritance was often partible. The custom of London, for example, required a third of the estate to be divided equally between sons and daughters, leaving a third to the discretion of the testator (Grassby 2000, p. 343). Studies of the English urban middle class and rural non-elite groups suggest that in wills equal treatment of children was common, in contrast to the testaments of the gentry (Earle 1989; Cooper 1992; Erickson 1993; Johnston 1995; Grassby 2000). Among relatively elite professions, elder and younger sons appear in roughly equal numbers (Brooks 1986, p. 245). Direct studies of intergenerational investments tend, however, to be limited in scale. Howell's exploration of rural inheritance patterns under primogeniture concentrates on a single community, Kibworth (Howell 1976). Field's exploration of London apprentices from North East England found a large proportion of first sons, but was limited to a sample of 87 (Field 2010, p. 8). that younger sons in families to the as their elder is on that parents the most their children of from wills from p. and birth order among the and Webb with from a of rural and to family one of the most important human capital investments prior to the emergence of was a for families to invest in the human capital of their children in pre-modern It was an in of costs in the of training on key how families to investments in between their children and how this was to household and the implications of investments for permanent from the home The first us to contrast the role of custom economic in human capital investment The provides a window into the to which departure from the household was as we to their home to a new household economic with parents and family than who that decisions in early modern England economic in the birth order effect was but was not were among children of households that did not capital and but were more children among families with Families of the that apprentices to the English elite, and in a way that is more often associated with a that into question the of elite values in economic growth (Clark of between apprentices and their home suggest that the to for an could the of long-term economic with more children, and that of did not permanent generate new evidence on household we household from and to of The sample of apprentices and children is the first substantial of non-elite youths in early modern England for it is to the relationship between household and decisions about leaving home and the of the The first of by the These from as and to that were The of London central in and in the of the in and and one large on the of the These have been as part of the and The children from the and children from the London who were born between and for their and their and were and who were not as the age of of from by of of London from in evidence of is from The first is a sample from London of apprentices who were between and It for some or all of this between a and of all London The sample of apprentices who by apprentices to on that were for between and provides evidence on However, it the apprentices who did not a and Wallis 2011). The and of the in a large and proportion of details on the of of were to children with an we of a with apprentices with children from we were to the child and their a period. in most we with a between the and the of of the in the for a we with a between the of apprentices and this was only to London apprentices for no of was with children from London for we a by and the apprentices to who in the but no about the of we that was a that were us to apprentices with children in the was to in the we a of to the only for children with an age when of between and more than one child could be to an apprentice, and this some apprentices were effect of this was to all to children in a single the of one is into using the the of potential by the of but also the of we the sample to the of the sample by the of the share of apprentices from one of the that we were to to a child in the family about of apprentices and about of of apprentices in London, as only of the apprentices were The higher we for apprentices from are to the greater in the of of apprentices from for example, not all as from would have had in the that have been the distribution of These are in the first of the when are most and the of youths in London its As a we have a of a large of a single with which we could the effect of on by and for more details on The of children the sample size as some apprentices are in both by and for more details on The of children the sample size as some apprentices are in both distribution of The we about the youths in sample For apprentices with the us with about the may be to and the of the The more on the of the outside the of the the of the parental is often in the The family a of about the family from which the that in the are from which we birth order and also about in the with which we birth order and size for and and Studies of the of youths in pre-modern that that were the sons of the (Earle 1989; et al. 2011). broad to for the sample we have all the apprentices we were apprentices had in the and with some sons of and and and a of gentry children also to an from the lower of as apprentices with or are in evidence in London, the was by the sons of in may their more than their For apprentices to the we that their of 15 to were in with by of apprentices and Wallis 2011). the apprentices we appear to be of the as a for for London be affected by not for for London be affected by not have no for family but are some were the eldest sons in their London, of apprentices had this but even a third of apprentices were eldest The of male children in an family by to age between the London families were with than sons on the as sons may be the of sons in London, but were much in the from the associated with between of with some important that to be in the the structure of all and a of the family as take in the of as as in the of the that the of evidence for child and family one of the of this is that it one of the more for a that outside the and from the than through a are not may us to family and size if children had been born outside the and to the of siblings for family resources if some outside the of of a birth order to and in was only one through which youths could skills in this period. not us about in agricultural or or training the parental they us about in London outside sample or about for which no was more no was on the The effect is to sample to to as who did not were generally in and training in London was relatively but to in a broad of youths et al. 2011; Minns and Wallis 2012). into was of to at the and central to studies of early modern training while we are to a share of and apprentices who are known to have from to their sample under of male children in and of male children in The of female apprentices we account for a share of female These the of that we to some children were apprenticed and others were not in a the proportion of children we as apprentices is and children who were apprenticed are not is to As with most studies of we about how who in were from the of youths in their or of For this we of apprentices as a sample of children of and on the of among children households we at one child apprenticed. The question that we is how families that did have the resources to an which child to in how to opportunities between children, families are to be by economic and the of as the of a or a as the of family the of the or was by and legal and social earlier decisions about the education and of children would and the inheritance families with large of relatively most land in would to the eldest European that families would children the birth order would to find a way to As the evidence for English gentry families younger children would be more to be in an that would with into a a new of to the family the resources to an and to the potential of children. However, one might also expect decisions whether or not to a child to a to the economic the If intergenerational was an important the aptitude of children for a a role in which child to in an Families might want to in this but they would also be by the of child and family aptitude to a distribution of no particularly birth are may resources to earlier children. the of a birth order effect on non-elite family investments, we the of we would see if birth order was to the in that families one for that aptitude for is of birth and that parents the they had the aptitude for Given we would expect that the share of apprentices who were eldest sons would be no to the share of all sons who were eldest Families with sons of eldest sons into with sons a third and if the share of apprentices who are eldest sons from share by the inverse of the of male children, then we have evidence of families between by birth and report the of this England, birth did were less to be eldest sons than we would expect if were or by aptitude in all families with more than one (Figure is much more in families were in (Figure in families with sons, for example, only of apprentices were eldest sons, with the we would expect if aptitude the London, the share of apprentices who were eldest sons is much to share by the size of their and of the differences by birth are (Figure in The the share of sons who be the eldest in families with sons in a The the share of apprentices in sample who were the eldest in their in in London The for to be for sons who were the birth order to the economic of their are clear differences in the of eldest sons who were apprenticed by families in the or distribution and were the to their eldest sons into while families in the service or were more to their eldest sons (Figure These differences may in part differences in family size group, as parents had more male children (Clark and et al. 2011). The eldest sons of service families are however, while the is for the eldest sons of and in distribution and is in London (Figure 8). the we also find substantial differences in the share of apprentices who were eldest sons, a smaller of male sons between eldest sons were less to be apprenticed were other siblings to but families with limited as who were to a training appear more to have opportunities older by by London us to a more of the effects of birth For of all male children to age in both the and London we have of the of which child or children in family an These the evidence from the of the eldest sons are relative to sons, a that is to the of for and male and female size For London the eldest effect is much to both and in the patterns of by find parents in the training opportunities to younger sons to a greater than other groups in the and from the distribution and the in other and in London, the data suggest that parents were less by birth with eldest treated in a way to their younger order appear to have been strongly by and of family and were in urban than rural a relationship between and and in The is a of whether or not the was to an The sample of all male children who to age in households at one male child was as apprenticed. the and of siblings or on the to age by in and in The is a of whether or not the was to an The sample of all male children who to age in households at one male child was as apprenticed. the and of siblings or on the to age by in and in London The is a of whether or not the was to an The sample of all male children who to age in households at one male child was apprenticed. the and of siblings or on the to age by in and in London The is a of whether or not the was to an The sample of all male children who to age in households at one male child was apprenticed. the and of siblings or on the to age by in often to The literature on that this was a first to apprentices would have little to to their of after training It is also however, that between a third and a of apprentices did not their of and that than of apprentices to or of the in which they after their training 1991; Wallis 2008; 2010; Minns and Wallis 2012). have only been to about to apprentices who from training and the from the that could be to However, it is also that apprentices their training with some of early The patterns of in London and suggest that some had service to training and that they could if they home and Wallis 2012). by apprentices also appear to the higher that some apprentices were to leave with apprentices from groups who were more to leave early higher to their and Wallis 2011). evidence that youths in as part of has been at however. between and provides of evidence about the of youths who had the marriage of their in their of and the of a family their of The share of apprentices who were in of in their of birth is in with the share in of It be that only the third a evidence of or marriage might a or simply be an to a may a who had home when or an who had in to their of the marriage and the of with the of and some would as by a family at home. of in of for sample and for by of of in of for sample and for by of us take the How often did apprentices in their home find that of all apprentices in their of we have a substantial of apprentices who in their of to train, we have a which to marriage outcomes for who left home to Among the home marriage was lower for apprentices who for their of training in their home would The home marriage to among youths apprenticed elsewhere but outside London, and to for who to London to It is that the of for marriage with from but that one in youths who to London as apprentices in their home this in if marriage this would account for one in of London apprentices who did not in the As of apprentices from London of in the in their home a relatively share of were is not surprising the large of in the and the of marriage at the and other more were elsewhere in the were in their of with much the as they were of London apprentices were with of apprentices who in their of is evidence of apprentices to their with of apprentices in London and of elsewhere at If we to the of the distribution of apprentices who are as their family in their of we find a of apprentices to their of the distribution of the apprentices who are in the as of Among apprentices from London, only one in twenty are to have their family in their of As with and the of this not be the of they could have in the Among of were their of elsewhere and of in London children in their of It to be that the of apprentices from who are children is not a of who are in their of of apprentices with families have no marriage we to at the that apprentices would in their of we find that one in apprentices were as a in their home after they were of this is to in the of of and a of London, apprentices who were some in their However, is also substantial evidence of apprentices to their of after training of apprentices in London and of apprentices outside their home but not in London appear in doubt some of of Yet the of the of is and the effect of that might have been or in the if The that the of apprentices to home or not was to their family and the resources it find in the effect that parental at the of had on the of For example, the and London of apprentices who in London with both parents were at of have an associated with to the home (Figure If both parents were when the apprentices were the of to for apprentices who were when their into a new for training was to be with that apprentices often had their than with their in not appear to have in to a apprentices were not more to in the of than about the of to be to between apprentices who were to the of an inheritance the of a and who to However, at of apprentices their that inheritance is at a the relationship between the of a parental household and the of its children to their of birth that apprentices were by the by the social capital and economic resources of their as we would expect in and to home was one of the human capital investment opportunities to pre-modern The to an investment with it a of important economic child receive the were the effects of a child on their to the family and home The answers to the importance of economic and intergenerational in private human capital investment decisions prior to this we household families that in a for one of their children. provides the first substantial of evidence on the way non-elite pre-modern families the of this of human capital investment. families in which a child was we find evidence of a the eldest was among the sons of For the children of in their is much less evidence of a birth order their parents of its as an to and the of sons who were Among the the may have been to in of eldest It that the social and economic significance of between families on the of their other particularly the relative significance of land and their economic For most of the of English was an investment for sons, some of with the landed However, it is important not to of the that the of the was Among the eldest sons were apprenticed. the a large of apprentices were eldest sons, even from a relatively large for a aptitude and in their with custom or inheritance The contrast is even if the much birth order in studies of and 1992; of to the home we find a of the on in most studies of family apprentices to while others their way home with a from outside the to establish a new family in their home London did not to an with a family and home Given it that parents could from from the training provided to that at some apprentices could to their parental or with its than on their resources in a from their As this would parental as an important in the of if the parents had they were apprentices were less to home in These have implications for the role of human capital formation in economic growth in pre-industrial evidence of first sons younger that human capital investments were to aptitude than on the of on birth in land did not apprentices with their home after training would have the of parents to training opportunities to most to suggest that pre-industrial parents were in opportunities in order to the potential to children, but that and economic large on how much families could Families that apprentices from the English Given the and economic importance of this broad social group, their behaviour doubt on that and even the of primogeniture in pre-modern (Goody et al. 1976; 1986; Landes p. and and for more family among non-elite groups that on birth order and Sabean 2011). The differences between and the of the also the of elite and their to economic growth (Clark 2007). pre-industrial were by or by the costs of of part of their they birth to the pre-industrial families much as families in studies of in the the at the in in and the capital from a household at the in for and also to the and the in Webb and for data for are also to and we of De Moor of this was while Minns was in the of at and birth order by and birth order by of in of details of in of details

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

The record

Venue

European Review of Economic History

Topic

Historical Economic and Social Studies

Field

Economics, Econometrics and Finance

Canadian institutions

—

Funders

Queen's University

Keywords

Human capitalEconomicsInvestment (military)IndustrialisationLabour economicsOrder (exchange)Demographic economicsEconomic growthMarket economyPolitical scienceFinanceLaw

Has abstract in OpenAlex

yes

API

/api/v1/works/W2118687986