Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T20:19:39.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A life-course approach to co-residence in the Netherlands, 1850–1940

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2010

JAN KOK  and
KEES MANDEMAKERS
JAN KOK
Affiliation:
Virtual Knowledge Studio for the Humanities and Social Sciences, Amsterdam, and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium).
KEES MANDEMAKERS
Affiliation:
International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, and Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we study variations in co-residence with kin in the Netherlands in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. We use the reconstructed life courses of 17,527 individuals derived from the Historical Sample of the Netherlands (HSN) database. The life-course approach allows us to look at co-residence from the perspectives of both the receiving households and the co-resident kin. What made households take in relatives and do we find a preference for one type of relative over another? What was the background of people who decided to co-reside in another household? How important were family-related ‘altruistic’ motives compared with economic ones? The outcomes suggest the predominance of altruistic motives for co-residence, apart from persistent inheritance customs in the eastern part of the country.

La corésidence aux pays-bas, à partir des cours de vie (1850–1940)

Nous étudions dans cet article comment ont varié les corésidences avec les personnes apparentées au Pays-Bas de la mi-19e siècle à la mi-20e siècle. Nous avons eu recours à la reconstitution des cours de vie de 17 527 individus à partir de la banque de données par sondage de la population historique des Pays-Bas. Une telle approche nous a permis d'analyser les corésidences tant du point de vue des ménages hébergeant que de celui des personnes apparentées co-résidentes. Pour quelle raison des ménages hébergeaient-ils des membres de la parentèle? Y eut-il une préférence pour tel ou tel type de personne apparentée? Qu'y avait-il derrière la décision, chez certaines gens, de corésider au sein d'un autre ménage? Quelle importance revêtaient les motifs ‘altruistes’ – dans le cadre de la famille – par rapport aux motifs d'ordre économique familial? Les résultats de notre enquête donnent à penser que les motifs altruistes de corésidence ont prédominé, sauf à considérer, pour la partie Est du pays, des pratiques d'héritage persistantes.

Eine lebenslaufuntersuchung der koresidenz von verwandten in den niederlanden, 1850–1940

In diesem Beitrag untersuchen wir Unterschiede im Zusammenleben mit Verwandten (Koresidenz) in den Niederlanden im späten 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert. Wir bedienen uns dabei der rekonstruierten Lebensläufe von 17.527 Personen, die aus der Historischen Stichprobe der Niederlande gewonnen wurden. Die Lebenslaufuntersuchung erlaubt es uns, Koresidenz sowohl aus der Perspektive der aufnehmenden Haushalte als auch der mitwohnenden Verwandten zu betrachten. Was führte dazu, dass Haushalte Verwandte aufnahmen, und gab es Präferenzen für bestimmte Verwandte gegenüber anderen? Vor welchem Hintergrund entschieden sich Leute, in einem fremden Haushalt mit anderen zusammenzuleben? Wie wichtig waren familienbezogene, ‘altruistische’ Motive im Vergleich zu solchen der Familienwirtschaft? Die Ergebnisse legen den Schluss nahe, dass Koresidenz hauptsächlich auf altruistische Motive zurückzuführen ist, abgesehen von hartnäckigen Vererbungsbräuchen im östlichen Teil der Niederlande.

Type
Research Article
Information
Continuity and Change , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , August 2010 , pp. 285 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 E.g. T. Bengtsson, C. Campbell and J. Z. Lee eds., Life under pressure: mortality and living standards in Europe and Asia, 1700–1900 (Cambridge MA, 2004); D. I. Kertzer and D. P. Hogan, Family, political and demographic change: the transformation of life in Casalecchio, Italy, 1861–1921 (Madison, 1989); J. Z. Lee and C. D. Campbell, Fate and fortune in rural China: social organization and population behavior in Liaoning, 1774–1873 (Cambridge, 1997); R. Derosas and M. Oris eds., When dad dies: individuals and families coping with distress in past societies (Bern, 2002); Alter, G., Dribe, M. and van Poppel, F., ‘Widowhood, family size, and post-reproductive mortality: a comparative analysis of three populations in nineteenth-century Europe’, Demography 44/4 (2007), 785–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. Durães, A. Fauve-Chamoux, L. Ferrer and J. Kok eds., The transmission of well-being: gendered marriage strategies and inheritance systems in Europe (17th–20th centuries) (Bern, 2009).

2 Alter, G. and Oris, M., ‘Childhood conditions, migration, and mortality: migrants and natives in nineteenth-century cities’, Social Biology 52/3–4 (2005), 178–91Google Scholar.

3 E.g. R. A. Settersten ed., Invitation to the life course: toward new understandings of later life (Amityville, 2002).

4 E.g. Szołtysek, M., ‘Central European household and family systems, and the Hajnal-Mitterauer line: the parish of Bujakow (18th–19th centuries)’, History of the Family 12/1 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Szołtysek, M., ‘Three kinds of preindustrial household formation system in historical Eastern Europe: a challenge to spatial patterns of the European family’, History of the Family 13/3 (2008), 223–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 A. Fauve-Chamoux and E. Ochiai eds., The stem family in Eurasian perspective: revisiting house societies, 17th–20th centuries (Bern, 2009).

6 M. S. Hartman, The household and the making of history: a subversive view of the western past (Cambridge, 2004); T. de Moor and J. L. van Zanden, Vrouwen en de geboorte van het kapitalisme (Meppel, 2006).

7 Cornell, L. L., ‘Household studies: a review essay’, Historical Methods 19 (1986), 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 133.

8 F. van Poppel, M. Oris and J. Lee eds., The road to independence: leaving home in western and eastern Societies, 16th and 20th centuries (Bern, 2003); Bras, H., ‘Social change, service and youth in the lives of rural-born Dutch women, 1840–1940, Continuity and Change 19/2 (2004), 241–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dribe, M. and Lundh, C., ‘Determinants of servant migration in nineteenth-century Sweden’, Continuity and Change 20/1 (2005), 53–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Hammel, E. A. and Laslett, P., ‘Comparing household structure over time and between cultures’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 16 (1974), 73–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 99.

10 Hammel and Laslett, ‘Comparing household structure’, 98.

11 D. I. Kertzer, Family life in central Italy, 1880–1910: sharecropping, wage labor, and coresidence (New Brunswick NJ, 1984) 205. See also Elder, G. H., ‘Family history and the life course’, Journal of Family History 2 (1977), 279–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Vinovskis, M. A., ‘From household size to the life course: some observations on recent trends in family history’, American Behavioral Scientist 21 (1977), 263–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Wall, R., ‘Widows: perceptions, demography, residence patterns, and standards of living’, History of the Family 7/1 (2002), 3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 S. Ruggles, Prolonged connections: the rise of the extended family in nineteenth-century England and America (Madison, 1987), ‘The transformation of American family structure’, The American Historical Review 99/1 (1994), 103–28, and ‘Multigenerational families in nineteenth-century America’, Continuity and Change 18/1 (2003), 139–65.

14 Smith, J. E., ‘Method and confusion in the study of the household’, Historical Methods 22 (1989), 57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; King, M., ‘All in the family? The incompatability and reconciliation of family demography and family history’, Historical Methods 23 (1990), 32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kertzer, D. I., ‘Household history and sociological theory’, Annual Review of Sociology 17 (1991), 155–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ruggles, S., ‘Confessions of a microsimulator: problems in modeling the demography of kinship’, Historical Methods 26/4 (1993), 161–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 See Ruggles, Prolonged connections.

16 The HSN totals 78,000 research persons from the birth period 1812–1922 and is located at the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam (IISH); for more information about the databases see www.issg.nl/hsn (email ). See also K. Mandemakers, ‘The Netherlands. Historical Sample of the Netherlands’, in P. Kelly Hall, R. McCaa and G. Thorvaldsen eds., Handbook of international historical microdata for population research (Minneapolis, 2000).

17 J. A. Verduin, ‘Het gezin in demografisch perspectief’, in G. A. Kooy ed., Gezinsgeschiedenis: vier eeuwen gezin in Nederland (Assen and Maastricht, 1985), 69–110.

18 A. M. van der Woude, ‘Bevolking en gezin in Nederland’, in F. L. van Holthoon ed., De Nederlandse samenleving sinds 1815: wording en samenhang (Assen, 1985).

19 Verduin, ‘Het gezin’, 72.

20 C. de Hoog, C. Huishouden, huwelijk en gezin, Interimrapport Censusmonografieën (Amsterdam, 1976).

21 G. A. Kooy, Het veranderend gezin in Nederland (Assen, 1957).

22 A. M. van der Woude, Het Noorderkwartier: een regionaal-historisch onderzoek in de demografische en economische geschiedenis van westelijk Nederland van de late middeleeuwen tot het begin van de negentiende eeuw (Wageningen, 1973).

23 Verduin, ‘Het gezin’, 75.

24 G. A. Kooy, De oude samenwoning op het nieuwe platteland: een studie over de familiehuishouding in de agrarische Achterhoek (Assen, 1959).

25 J. Lucassen, Migrant labour in Europe 1600–1900: the drift to the North Sea (London, Sydney, and Wolfeboro NH, 1987).

26 Summarized in H. de Haan, In the shadow of the tree: kinship, property and inheritance among farm families (Amsterdam, 1994).

27 van Blom, D., ‘Boerenerfrecht (met name in Gelderland en Utrecht)’, De Economist 64 (1915), 849–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Kooy, De oude samenwoning, 14–24.

29 Verduin, ‘Het gezin’, 89.

30 S. Rijpma, ‘The extended family revisited’, in C. de Hoog, L. Th. van Leeuwen, Q. J. Munters and C. J. Weeda eds., Tussen empirie en reflectie: verzamelde opstellen voor G. A. Kooy (Wageningen, 1985), 53–6.

31 Van Blom, ‘Boerenerfrecht’, e.g. p. 873.

32 De Haan, In the shadow of the tree, 115–16.

33 D. Damsma and J. Kok, ‘Ingedroogde harten? Partnerkeuze en sociale reproductie van de Noord-Hollandse boerenstand in de negentiende en vroeg-twintigste eeuw’, in J. Kok and M. H. D. van Leeuwen ed., Genegenheid en gelegenheid: twee eeuwen partnerkeuze en huwelijk (Amsterdam, 2005); Bras, H. and van Tilburg, T., ‘Kinship and social networks: a regional analysis of sibling relations in twentieth-century Netherlands’, Journal of Family History 32 (2007), 296–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Kok, J. and Mandemakers, K., ‘“Je zoudt maar last van mij hebben”: verwanten in het Nederlandse huishouden, 1860–1940’, Tijdschrift voor Sociale en Economische Geschiedenis 6 (2009), 139–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 A. Janssens, Family and social change: the household as a process in an industrializing community (Cambridge, 1994).

36 Ruggles, Prolonged connections, 11, 134.

37 B. de Vries, ‘Familiehulp 1800–1890’, in J. van Gerwen and M. H. D. van Leeuwen eds., Studies over zekerheidsarrangementen: Risico's, risicobestrijding en verzekeringen in Nederland vanaf de Middeleeuwen (Amsterdam and The Hague, 1998), 472.

38 E. A. M. Bulder, The social economics of old age: strategies to maintain income in later life in the Netherlands 1880–1940 (Groningen, 1993) 168.

39 Mandemakers, ‘The Netherlands’.

40 For the way in which the life courses were constructed from the population registers, see Mandemakers, K., ‘Building life course datasets from population registers by the Historical Sample of the Netherlands (HSN)’, History and Computing 14 (2006), 87–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 C. Gordon, The Bevolkingsregisters and their use in analyzing co-residential behaviour of the elderly (The Hague, 1989), Nederlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI) report 9.

42 As the registers for 1850–1862 are not detailed enough, we have used information on persons born in 1850 from their thirteenth birthday onwards, those born in 1851 from their twelfth birthday, and so on.

43 The south-east is the provinces of Limburg, Gelderland and Overijssel; the south-west is those of Utrecht, Zeeland and Noord-Brabant; and the north-west is the provinces of North-Holland, South-Holland, Groningen, Drenthe and Friesland.

44 Our social-class categories are derived from HISCLASS, in itself based on the HISCO-coding scheme; see M. H. D. van Leeuwen, I. Maas and A. Miles, HISCO: Historical International Standard Classification of Occupations (Leuven, 2002); M. H. D. van Leeuwen, I. Maas and A. Miles, Marriage choices and class boundaries: social endogamy in history (Cambridge, 2005).

45 S. Menard, Applied logistic regression analysis (Thousand Oaks CA, London and New Delhi, 1995).

46 Such an analysis would be feasible with competing risks event history analysis; see K.Yamaguchi, Event history analysis (Newbury Park CA, 1991). However, this requires even more detailed information on the timing of events than we have.

47 C. Pooley and J. Turnbull, Migration and mobility in Britain since the eighteenth century (London, 1998).

48 M. J. Maynes, Taking the hard road: life course in French and German worker's autobiographies in the era of industrialization (Chapel Hill and London, 1995); M. Mitterauer, A history of youth (Oxford, 1992); and Kok, J., ‘Youth labor migration and its family setting: the Netherlands 1850–1940’, The History of the Family 2 (1997), 507–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Janssens, Family and social change.

50 The 10,814 youths were born in the period 1850–1918, were still unmarried and are ‘observed’ on their twentieth birthday: that is, the database contains information on their household situation on that date.

51 Kok, ‘Youth labor migration’.

52 This may in part be attributed to the change (around 1920) in administrative practices in which co-resident kin were increasingly relegated to special cards for solitary persons.

53 S. Coontz, Marriage, a history: how love conquered marriage (New York, 2005), 183, 184, 207; Ruggles, Prolonged connections.