How Many Household Formation Systems Were There in Historic Europe? A View Across 256 Regions Using Partitioning Clustering Methods

M. Szołtysek, Bartosz Ogórek
{"title":"How Many Household Formation Systems Were There in Historic Europe? A View Across 256 Regions Using Partitioning Clustering Methods","authors":"M. Szołtysek, Bartosz Ogórek","doi":"10.1080/01615440.2019.1656591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper reconsiders one of historical demography’s most pertinent research problems: the fiddly concept of historical household formation systems. Using a massive repository of historical census micro-data from the North Atlantic Population Project and the Mosaic project, the four markers of Hajnal’s household formation rules were operationalized for 256 regional rural populations from Catalonia in the west to central Siberia in the east, between 1700 and 1926. We then analyze these data using the Partitioning Around Medoids algorithm in order to empirically derive the “natural groups” based on the similarity and the dissimilarity of their household formation traits. Although regional differences between European household formation systems are readily identifiable, the two statistically most valid clustering solutions (k = 2; k = 4) provide a more complex picture of household formation regimes than Hajnal and his followers have been able to compile. Our finding that when regional populations cluster on similar household formation characteristics, they often come from both sides of Hajnal’s “imaginary line,” calls into question strict bipolar divisions of the continent. By and large, we show that the long-lived idea of two household formation systems in preindustrial Europe obscures considerable variability in historical family behavior, and therefore needs to be amended.","PeriodicalId":154465,"journal":{"name":"Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History","volume":"72 12","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440.2019.1656591","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Abstract This paper reconsiders one of historical demography’s most pertinent research problems: the fiddly concept of historical household formation systems. Using a massive repository of historical census micro-data from the North Atlantic Population Project and the Mosaic project, the four markers of Hajnal’s household formation rules were operationalized for 256 regional rural populations from Catalonia in the west to central Siberia in the east, between 1700 and 1926. We then analyze these data using the Partitioning Around Medoids algorithm in order to empirically derive the “natural groups” based on the similarity and the dissimilarity of their household formation traits. Although regional differences between European household formation systems are readily identifiable, the two statistically most valid clustering solutions (k = 2; k = 4) provide a more complex picture of household formation regimes than Hajnal and his followers have been able to compile. Our finding that when regional populations cluster on similar household formation characteristics, they often come from both sides of Hajnal’s “imaginary line,” calls into question strict bipolar divisions of the continent. By and large, we show that the long-lived idea of two household formation systems in preindustrial Europe obscures considerable variability in historical family behavior, and therefore needs to be amended.
历史上的欧洲有多少种家庭形成制度?使用分区聚类方法跨256个区域的视图
摘要:本文重新思考历史人口学中最相关的研究问题之一:历史家庭形成制度的繁琐概念。利用来自北大西洋人口项目和马赛克项目的大量历史人口普查微观数据库,从1700年到1926年,从西部的加泰罗尼亚到东部的西伯利亚中部,256个地区农村人口中,Hajnal的家庭形成规则的四个标志被操作。然后,我们使用分割算法对这些数据进行分析,以便根据其家庭结构特征的相似性和差异性经验推导出“自然群体”。虽然欧洲家庭形成系统之间的区域差异很容易识别,但两种统计上最有效的聚类解决方案(k = 2;k = 4)提供了一幅比Hajnal和他的追随者能够汇编的更复杂的家庭形成机制的图景。我们的发现是,当区域人口聚集在相似的家庭组成特征上时,他们通常来自Hajnal“想象线”的两侧,这对大陆严格的两极划分提出了质疑。总的来说,我们表明,在工业化前的欧洲,两种家庭形成系统的长期观念掩盖了历史上家庭行为的相当大的变异性,因此需要修正。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信