R?
5“?“

I.
'2‘
‘
o t I».
Q.
I

. . SJ
tam“ R 3000.-
... m u a \
L“ 4 ‘f‘o 3.»: WW
Cn‘ Ania». “U ‘I .D I

a 3:-

53
1339
L;}&;
5‘13“.

r. i ‘ w.
.3. :6. run 3mm aw,“ a“.
.. .g u mu... 5

Wm WM 2. Ta. . .. m.”

, 0t .
.01. E. ‘0
”kl: fir . fl. ORV mus.
s A. 0 5.0. a. .
nth .I .0 w“0 .F... A
.n—Wl- I); nllls
J. an W cm w“
9 a... é. an.
g 5 - u... r.) u
3.. .01 V .3. ‘Q
Q. S Q:
. ‘ ”or
«3. 3 Mt” \K.
“it. 1... Nut
ltd; .l. {1
Ch . 1
in” mu. run”

“.5
Fm
cw.“
mu, a
Mr.

‘_+_E___:____,_;_V__:___: mm

 

THESIS

LIBRARY

Michigan State
Universuty

 

ROOM USE ONLY

 

ABSTRACT
RESIDENTIAL DIFFERENTIALS IN FERTILITY

MICHIGAN I960

By Yogini B. Thanawalla

The major concern of this thesis is with residential differentials in

the number of children ever born per l,000 white ever married women l5 to

hh years old. The study is based on the census of population of the United

States in I960 for the State of Michigan. A brief review of differential

fertility from early l8th century constitutes the first part of the thesis.

The second part tests the hypotheses.

General findings are as follows:

The fertility ratio in Michigan in I960 was higher in rural-farm
areas, intermediate in rural-nonfarm and lowest in the urban areas.
This was also true for the age groups of women from 25 to 3h and from
35 to hh. The only exception was for the age-group of women IE to

2h years of age.

Urban, rural-nonfarm and rural-farm areas of metropolitan areas of
Michigan in l960 had lower fertility ratios than the reSpective
residence sections of non-metropolitan areas.

Residential differences in fertility were greater for metropolitan

than for non-metropolitan areas of Michigan in I960.

RESIDENTIAL DIFFERENTIALS IN FERTILITY,

MICHIGAN l960

By

YOGINI B. THANAHALLA

A Thesis
Submitted To
Michigan State University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For The Degree 0f

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

I965

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude to all the members of my committee:
Drs. J. Allan Beegle, James McKee and Jay Artis.

Sincere thanks are extended to Dr. Beegle for his valuable guidance,
understanding and patience. The writer is deeply indebted to him for the
time and energy he Spent, even during his busiest days, in the process of
completion of this thesis.

Thanks are also due to my colleagues who helped me in various ways.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I. Introduction I
The Problem I
Background of the Problem 3
Statement of Hypotheses 6
Definitions 6
Methods and Procedure 9
Order of Presentation l0
2. Review of Literature: Residential Differentials 12
in Fertility
Origin of Rural-Urban Differentials 12
Historical Perspective on Differentials )3
Rural-Urban Differentials in the United States 18
Rural-Urban Differentials in Michigan 25
3. Residential Differentials in Fertility 28
Hypothesis I 28
Hypothesis ll 39
Hypothesis III AA
4. Summary and Conclusions. 50
Appendix Table 53

Bibliography 54

 

 

Table

3.

5.

7.

List of Tables

Page
Rank of ratios of children to women IS-hh by residence 29
and metrOpolitan and non-metrOpolitan status, Michigan, 1960.
Rank of ratios of children to women 15-2h by residence and 3h
metrOpolitan and non-metrOpolitan status, Michigan 1960.
Rank of ratios of children to women 25-34 by residence and 37
metrOpolitan and non-metrOpolitan status, Michigan, 1960.
Rank of ratios of children to women 35-h4 by residence and 38
metrOpolitan and non-metropolitan status, Michigan, 1960.
Ratio of children ever-born per 1,000 white ever-married women 40
in metrOpolitan versus non-metrOpolitan State Economic Areas,
by residence and age-group of women, Michigan, 1960.
Range among SEA's in ratios of children ever-born per 1,000 #3
white ever married women in metropolitan versus non-metrOpolitan
State Economic Areas by residence and age-group of women,
Michigan, 1960.
Percent by which the ratio of children ever-born per 1,000 #5
white ever married women, by age group of women in the rural-
farm papulation exceeds that of the urban population for metro-
politan and non-metrOpolitan State Economic Areas, Michigan, 1960.
Percent by which the fertility ratio, by age group of women 46

in rural-nonfarm population exceeds that of the urban papulation
for metrOpolitan and non-metropiitan State Economic Areas,

Michigan, 1950.

IV

Table Page

9. Percent by which the fertility ratio by age group of women
#7

in the rural-farm p0pu1ation exceeds that of the rural-nonfarm

population for metrOpolitan and non-metropolitan State Economic

Areas, Michigan, 1960.

Appendix Table

Ratios of children ever-born to women lS-Ah by residence and

age-group in metr0politan and non-metrOpolitan status, Michigan, 53

I960.

List of Figures

State Economic Areas of Michigan, 1960.

Ratio of children ever born per 1,000 white ever married

women aged 15 to 44 in urban areas, Michigan, 1960.

Ratio of children ever born per 1,000 white ever married women
aged 15 to 44 in rural-nonfarm areas, Michigan, 1960.

Ratio of children ever born per 1,000 white ever married

women aged 15 to 44 in rural-farm areas, Michigan, 1960.

Ratio of children ever born per 1,000 white ever married

women aged 15 to 44, Michigan, 1960.

V1

Page
30

31

33

36

4]

Chapter 1 - Introduction

The Problem

The major concern of this thesis is residential differentials in the
fertility of white married women. The study is restricted to the analysis
of 1960 data for the State Economic Areas of Michigan. The first part of

the study deals with the theoretical background which provides a basis for
the hypotheses to be tested. The second part is an analysis of the data
for three residential categories within metrOpolitan and non-metropolitan
areas, and for three age groups of white married women.

The descriptive part of this study covers a review of some of the

findings from studies dealing with differentials in fertility. Special
emphasis is placed upon the so-called rural-urban differential in fertility.
A section will be devoted to differential fertility in Michigan since 1940
in order to provide background data and to help in understanding current
fertility differentials.

The analytical part of this study is concerned with differential fertility
rates for different residential groups, by age of married white women, in
Michigan for 1960. A comparison is made between the major categories - metro-
politan and non-metrOpolitan State Economic Areas -- as a generalized control
for the degree of urbanity. Differences are pointed out among SEA units for
three age groups of white married women residing in rural-farm, rural-nonfarm
and urban areas. The two major variables used, therefore, are residence and

age group of women.

-1-

Rural-urban differentials in fertility seem to be prevalent in all parts
of the world, and perhaps they could be detected from the time urban centers
first appeared if the pr0per data were available. The rural-urban differ-
ential in fertility was the first of the differentials to be identified and
for some time this emphasis was dominant in population studies. One can
find residential differentials of considerable magnitude in the underdeveloped
countries. In western countries, these differentials started to decline
generally at least by the beginning of the 20th century. With increasing
urbanization, disruption of traditional social organization, and mass
communication, rural-urban differences to a considerable extent have been
eliminated. T. Lynn Smith, among others, has pointed out this trend as
well as the importance of the probbm.I

Since diminishing fertility rates are directly related to the degree
of urbanization, it is of interest to determine whether residential differ-
entials exist in a state such as Michigan which has a large proportion of
urban population and a high degree of interaction between rural and urban
residents. Furthermore, change in the definition of rural-farm population
in 1960 served to ”upgrade” this segment of the population. The question
arises as to whether earlier differentials still exist. Thus, the main
emphasis in this thesis is on two questions: do residential differentials

in fertility still exist and if so, what is their magnitude?

ISmith, T. Lynn, Fundamentals of Population Study, Chicago: J. B.
Lippincott Company, 1960, p. 313.

Background of the Problem

The level of fertility has been studied in relation to many variables.
Differentials in fertility in the United States have been examined for
geographic divisions and regions, and comparisons have been made among
states in these different divlSions.2 Thompson has observed that rural
versus urban differentials in fertility are found in all regions of the
United States and that therural-farm population had higher birth rates
than rural-nonfarm or urban populations. Furthermore size of the urban
place is found to be inversely related to fertility. Differentials for
cities of 250,000 or more, regardless of location in any of the regions,
however, have largely disappeared.3 This means that the size of place and
degree of urbanization reflected by it cease to affect reproductive behavior
among cities of 250,000 or more. Duncan and Reiss, using 1950 Census data,
show differentials according to residence in the United States. They rank
four regions according to degree of urbanization and then compare fertility
for the different residential groups in these regions.

Most of the work on differential fertility has shown that as urban-
ization spreads, the birth rates fall. As T. Lynn Smith puts it, the more

urban an area, the lower the fertility of the population and the more rural

an area the higher the rate of reproduction. It has also been found that

 

2
Grabill, Wilson H., Kiser, Clyde V., Whelpton, Pascal K., The Fertility
of American Women, New'York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958, p. 53.

3Thompson, Warren S., Papulation Problems, New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., New York, 1953, p. 176.

Duncan, Otis D. and Reiss, Albert J. Social Characteristics of Urban
and Rural Communities, 1950. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, 1956, p. 50.

55mith, 02. Cit,, p. 309.

a»

m]

t
.
.
Q 9‘
I (
r
.
a n
I .\
o I
o
ox
.
o\ A
.
f
I
I
.
. _
I
. lb
.\
'\
a
_ ,,
'.\
, II
1!
,
r 7
'
’ c

-4-

the size of the city exerts different degrees of influence on the surround-

ing area. The larger the size of the place, the greater the influence.
Duncan and Reiss have demonstrated this point in detail.6 Differentials are
also discussed in terms of variations within the city. The evidence shows that
the suburban population is more fertile than that of the central city.7
In accordance with the theory of urban influence, the greater the distance
from the central city, the higher the fertility ratio. It has been found that
residents of urban fringe areas are more fertile than residents of the central
city and less fertile than the population living in non-metropolitan areas.
Taking metropolitan and non-metropolitan residential units, Bogue8 discusses
the differential population growth in these two areas and emphasizes the
point that rural as well as urban parts of the non-metropolitan areas grow
faster than that of metrOpolitan areas. Only part of this growth, however,
is due to birth rate differentials.

A majority of studies show a decline in urban and rural fertility rates

and therefore a narrowing of the differentials. Grabill indicates that

rural fertility declined in the United States much more rapidly than urban
fertility.9 This leads to the question, do differentials exist in an
urbanized state and if so, are rural fertility levels higher than urban?

Previous population studies for the state of Michigan showed that for

the most part the population of the state is urban, and still the growth of

 

6For detail see Duncan and Reiss, Op. Cit., Chapter 2.
7Duncan, Reiss, Op. Cit., p. 132.

8Bogue, Donald J., The ngulation of the United States, Glencoe: The
Free Press, 1959, Pg. 51-52.

9
Grabill, Kiser, and Whelpton. Op. Cit., PP. SI-IIZ.

-5-

the population is rather rapid. This growth could be the result of birth-
rates, death rates or migration. How much of this can be attributed to the
birth-rate? The first study on differential fertility for Michigan in 1940
noted a great difference by residence as well as higher fertility for the
rural pepulation.lo The fertility ratioll for urban areas was only 295 as
compared to 467 for the rural papulation. Variations for the different
parts of the state were also noticed. The rural-farm pepulations of the
Upper Peninsula and the northern part of the lower peninsula were marked with
highest fertility; rural-farm birth-rates were found to be lowest in the
southern and western counties of the lower peninsula where there are large
cities. Most of the urban places in Michigan are situated in the southern
part of the lower peninsula and the proportion of the rural-farm population
is highest in the northern portions of the state)2 The general theory of
urban influence on the nearby rural areas seems to be supported as the
rural parts of the upper peninsula and northern part of the lower peninsula
had higher fertility ratios than the southern metrOpolitan as well as non-
metrOpolitan areas. '3

Another bulletin published in 1957 , based on 1950 census data, showed

that in all residence groups the fertility ratio in Michigan was higher than

 

IO
Beegle, J. Allan., Differential Birth Rates- in Michigan, Michigan

State College, Agricultural Experiment Station, Section of Sociology and
AnthrOpology, East Lansing, 1948.

IIFertllity ratio - No. of children under 5 x 1,000

No. of females aged 15:44

lzBeegle, J. Allan., op, Cit., p. 14.

'3Beegle, J. Allan., Halsted, Donald, Michigan's Changing POpulation,
Bulletin 415, Op. Cit.

comparable rates at the national level. Between 1940 and 1950, the urban

fertility ratio increased 47 percent, the rural-nonfarm ratio increased 32

percent, and the rural-farm ratio increased 22 percent. The 1960 report

found a continuation of relatively high fertility for the rural p0pu1ation.II+
In view of the findings from past studies, it is expected that the

highest fertility will be found in the rural-farm p0pu1ation, intermediate

in the rural-nonfarm population, and lowest in the urban p0pu1ation. Further,

it is expected that this rank order will also be true for each of the three

age-groups of white women in these three residence groups.

Statement of Hypotheses

The foregoing discussion leads to the following hypotheses:

l. The fertility ratiols will be highest in rural-farm, intermediate
in rural-nonfarm and lowest in urban populations for each age-groups
of women.

2. The fertility ratio will be higher in non-metropolitan than in metro-
politan State Economic Areas for each residence and age-group of
women.

3. Residential differentials (rural-farm versus urban, rural-nonfarm
versus urban and rural-farm versus rural-nonfarm) in the fertility
ratio will be greater in non-metrOpolitan than in metropolitan State
Economic Areas.

Definitions

It is essential here to define the major concepts used in the present

analysis. Since the data came from the United States Bureau of Census, these

 

I“Beegle, Allan J., Phadtare, Hambir, Rice, Rodger, and Thaden, John F.,
Michigan Egpulation 1960, Bulletin 438, M.S.U. Agricultural Experiment
Station, East Lansing, 1962.

15

Children ever born per 1000 ever married white women of Specified age.

terms are defined in accord with census practice.

Rural-Farm, Rural-Nonfarm and Urban Residencez. - Due to numerous
social changes, the separation of rural and urban p0pu1ations of the United
States has been accomplished under differing definitions. As pointed out
by the Taeubers the rural farm p0pu1ation as presently defined is not
necessarily engaged in agricultural activities.]6

According to the 1960 Census of P0pulation, the urban p0pu1ation com-
prises all persons living in a) places of 2,500 inhabitants or more incor-
porated as cities, boroughs, villages and towns, b) the densely settled
urban fringe, incorporated or unincorporated, with a p0pu1ation of at least
2,500. All other areas, not defined as urban are considered rural. Before
1960, unincorporated areas regardless of their high density were considered
non-urban. The rural p0pu1ation, then is divided into rural-farm and rural-
nonfarm residence categories. All peOple, having 10 acres or more of land
and selling products worth $250 or more are categorized as rural-farm
population. It then follows that those not meeting the urban or rural-farm
Specifications are classed as rural-nonfarm residents. Thus, this residual
category may include persons living in the Open country, in small towns and
villages, as well as those residing outside the incorporated limits of
large cities.

Metpppolitan and Non-metropolitan Areas. - A metrOpolitan area refers
to a county or group of counties having a large city and thickly populated
adjacent territory. The official definition of the Bureau of the Census
describes it as an area including a city with 50,000 inhabitants or two

contiguous counties having two cities with a combined p0pu1ation of 50,000

 

l6Taeuber, Conrad and Irene B. Taeuber, The Changin Pepulation of the
United States, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 195 . P. 119.

-3-

and socially and economically integrated. All other areas, not included
in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas are considered non-metrOpolitan
areas. Thus, the State Economic Areas are subdivided into metrOpolitan
and non-metrOpolitan areas.

State Economic Areas. - State Economic Areas are relatively homogeneous
subdivisions of states. They consist of single counties or group of
counties which have similar economic and social characteristics.'7 These
areas recognize state boundaries and are important units of sufficient size
for many analytical purposes.‘8 A grouping of counties forming an economic
area is supposed to be as much different as possible from the surrounding
groupings of counties.

Bogue believes that as a descriptive device, economic areas permit
easy assemblage of a great many different kinds of statistical data for
testing a variety of hypotheses related to behavior and environment.‘9 This
quality makes them an apprOpriate unit for analyses in the field of demography.
Besides being homogenous, their more or less equal size and limited number
within a state aids in comparative description. Thus, the State Economic
Area used here represents a set of internally homogeneous sub-areas forming
a total environment.20

The Measgre of Fertility. - There are many different ways of measuring

fertility. Sorokin believed that the true rural-urban difference in

 

‘7United States Census of P0pulation 1960, United States Summary PC
(1) 1A Washington D. C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961.

l8Bogue, The Population of the United States, QP. Cit., p. 76.

Iglbid., p. 77.

20Bogue, Donald J., “Economic Areas as a Tool for Research and Planning,“
American Sociological Review, Vol. XV, pp. 409-416.

-9-

birth rates may be determined only when p0pu1ations compared are standard-
ized.2] It is essential, therefore, for fertility rates to be standardized,
the extent of which may depend upon the degree of accuracy desired. The
1960 Census of Population has used the term “fertility ratio” to denote the
number of children under 5 years old per 1,000 women 15 to 49 years old.
The ratio is a measure of effective fertility or of children surviving
after most infant mortality has occurred.

In this study fertility is measured in terms of the number of children
ever born per 1,000 ever-married white women between the ages of 15 and 44.
This basic ratio is computed separately for three age groups of married white
women, namely 15 to 24, 25 to 34, and 35 to 44. This measure of fertility
standardizes for the age of women. It is also “effective” in the sense that

it does not rely on birth registration. It also avoids the clumsy decimals

by fixing relative frequency of the phenomena for 1,000 women.

Methods and Procedure

The data used in this study emanate from the 1960 Census of Population
of the United States. The data were collected by an enumeration process
which allocates people according to their usual place of residence. The data
used here are the byproduct of the original 25 percent sampling procedures
used extensively in 1960, and have not been published in the form utilized
here. No statistical tests for significance of differences have been made
in this study. The population used for the study is 25 percent of the

total population of Michigan in 1960 and represents the universe. Thus

 

21
Sorokin, Pitirim A., Carle C. Zimmerman, Charles J. Galpin, Systematic

Source Book of Rural Sociology, Vol. 111, Minneapolis: The University of
Minneapolis Press, 1930-32, p. 135.

22United States Census of Population, 248 Michigan. Washington D.C.
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961, P 9.

-10-

any difference is considered a significant difference.

The first step in the study was to calculate the ratio of children ever
born to white married women. The computation was done by dividing the number
of ever-born children by the number of ever-married women, multiplied by one
thousand. The formula is as follows:

Number of children ever-born
Number of ever-married white women,

15-11.

X 1,000 = fertility ratio

In order to test the hypotheses, ratios were computed for State Economic
Areas (abbreviated SEA hereafter). Ratios were computed for the two main
divisions of SEA's, MetrOpolitan and non-metrOpolitan, which again were
separated into three residential categories - Urban, Rural-nonfarm and
Rural-farm.

The differentials for rural-farm versus rural-nonfarm,rural-farm versus
urban, and rural-nonfarm versus urban were obtained by subtracting the
ratio of the second category from that of the first in each combination for
metrOpolitan and non-metropolitan areas separately. This difference was
again divided by the second residential group in each combination and
multiplied by one hundred. The same procedure was followed to obtain the
differentials of metropolitan versus non-metropolitan in all the three
residential categories for all three age groups of women. Differentials
among reSpective age-groups of women for all the three residential cate-
gories were also obtained by the same process for each individual SEA units.
All SEA units were also ranked for three residential categories both for

metropolitan and non-metropolitan together and separately.

Order of Presentation

The following chapter (Chapter 11) gives a brief summary review of

-‘H-

selected studies of differential fertility. Chapter III presents an

analysis of the 1960 data bearing upon the hypotheses of this study.

Areas of high and low fertility are indicated. Chapter IV is an attempt

to summarize the findings and to draw conclusions from the findings.

Chapter 2 - Review of Literature: Residential
Differentials in Fertility

The following review of literature deals explicitly with studies of
rural-urban differentials in fertility and with birth-rate trends. Dis-
cussions of differential fertility are found in almost all books dealing with
population and many of them review empirical studies dealing with differential
birth rates. Although approaches of different authors to birth rate studies
and their reasoning concerning existing differentials are reviewed, this
thesis deals only with the white p0pu1ation residing in the state of Michigan
and the fertility measure utilized is children ever born per 1,000 ever
married white women between fifteen and forty-four years old. At the same
time, a brief survey of fertility differentials using other variables such

as social class, occupational level, and education, is given.

Origin of Rural-Urban Differentials

Rural-urban differentials were imperceptible during the period of initial
deve10pment of the city but through a very gradual process, this differential
widened. Even before the Middle Ages, the cities of Egypt and Babylonia had
a large percentage of agricultural p0pu1ation, and other characteristics of the
p0pu1ation were such that group differentials were either very small or did not
exist. With economic deve10pment, increase of population, and inventions in
the technical field, the city-country differentiation became visible in
demographic studies. This process was slow but took place in most parts of
the world. The various countries of the world have never had a uniform

definition of urban and rural population. Some defined it in terms of

-12-

-]3-

population size and some defined it morphologically. A French writer, Rumelin
employed demographic characteristics and asserted that cities have lower birth
rates and higher marriage rates, but these properties vary according to the
size of the city at various times and places.] Differences have become more
clear-cut in terms of occupation, environment, size of community, homogeneity
and heterogeneity of population, social stratification, and mobility. These
are described by Sorokin and Zimmerman who present a "rural-framework'| and an
”urban framework.” The essence of this typology leads to the assumption that

rural and urban worlds are separate from each other.

Historical Perspective on Differentials

Regarding the family differences of these two worlds, it is said that
"the data show that the average number of children born in rural families
is higher, the pr0portion of childless marriages or marriages with one child
is lower, while the proportion of the marriages with many children is higher
than in urban families.”3 This situation is also examined by historical
evidence. The development of urbanization in the past was marked by falling
birth-rates. ”Present urban-rural differences are practically identical with
these in ancient urban societies; and the recent trends in the family insti-
tution are in essence identical with the trends which took place in Rome

and Greece parallel to the growth of urbanization in those societies."

 

lSorokin, Pitirim A., Zimmerman, Carle C., Galpin, Charles J., Systematic
Source Book of Run! Sociology, Vol. I, Menneapolis: The University of Minne-
sota Press, 1930, Chapters Ill and IV.

2Sorokin, Pitirim A., Zimmerman, Carle C., Principles of Rural-Urban
Sociology, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1929, Chapter II.

3
Ibid., p. 344.

#lbid., p. 345.

-14-

In general, throughout the world, urbanization is associated with falling
birthrates. In Spite of the fact that age and sex distribution is more
favorable to the cities, rural areas in different countries show higher crude
birth rates than urban areas. Empirical evidence is provided by highly
urbanized countries like the United States, England and France (where rapid
decline in the crude birth rate has occurred). Standardized birth rates for
the period 1910 to 1925 in many countries show higher birth rates associated
with the major occupation, agriculture. Generally, agriculturists and miners
have higher fertility than other occupational groups. Data for England,
Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, Australia and other industrialized countries
show the urban standardized birth rate to be declining rapidly, resulting
in a large difference between rural and urban fertility. The possible reasons
given for this higher birth rate in rural than urban districts are familism,
religion, traditional morals, social organization, economy, lower density
of population, age of marriage and lower mobility.5

Differentials due to rural-urban residence and other variables have a
long history in most countries of the world about which we have demographic
knowledge. Although different techniques of measurement are applied, they show
a general tendency. For England and wales, Thompson uses the measure of
number of children born to each one hundred coupbs of completed fertility,
by social status, by duration of marriage, and by age at marriage. He found
that there was rapid increase in the differential in fertility between the
lower and the upper classes due to rational control of the size of family

on the part of the upper and middle classes.6 A 1960 U.N. report by Johnson

 

51bid., Chapter 9.

6Thompson, Warren 5., Po ulation Problems, New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., 1953, pp. 182-1 5.

.]5.

says that an inverse relationship between fertility and social class was observed
in the nineteenth century. But due to a decline in lower class birth rates,
there was gradual contraction. Rural-urban differentials were more prominent
after 1900. Only after 1931 they began to narrow. In 1950, rural fertility
was still found to be higher than urban fertility. Here the ratio used was
computed for children under five per 1,000 women twenty to forty-four years
old. Further, the 1950 census data show a highly positive relationship between
college educated women and fertility rates in England and Wales. But this

may have resulted from the combined effect of other meio-economic variables.
Occupational differentials were marked since 1900, but there has been a gradual
decline.7 In France, too, the differentials between white-collar workers and
manual laborers were substantial but have tended to decline. A positive
relationship between economic condition and family size was found only in
Stockholn.8 Most of the other EurOpean countries such as Norway, Belgium,
Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and Netherlands coincide with the pattern shown

9 In Denmark and Sweden, the differentials

in the case of England and Wales.
due to rural-urban residence were large because of the rapid decline in
birth rates for the urban p0pu1ation, which later on narrowed with a rapid
increase in urban birth rates compared to rural birth rates during the

10
period from 1910 to 1950.

A report on the expected family size values in West Germany by the

 

7Johnson, Gwendolyn Z.,“Differential Fertility in EurOpean Countries'in
Demo ra hic and Economic Chan e in DevelgpegyCountries, Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1960, Chapter II.

802, Cit., pp. 185-186.
9

 

Op, Cit., Chapter 2.
‘olbid,, Chapter 2.

Pl

-15-

University of Michigan shows an inverse relationship between the size of
community and fertility for two religious groups, namely Catholics and
Protestants. However, the process of urbanization has reduced the fertility
differentials between them. Fertility differentials by occupation are smaller
in cities, but they show a U-shaped curve, that is, the highest and the lowest
status group in the rank order of occupation have higher fertility. The same
pattern is seen with regard to educational differences. This differential,
however, is not very pronounced.

While discussing the relationship between urbanization and fertility
ratio, Robinson listed nineteen non-western countries and fourteen of them have
lower fertility ratio for their urban population than the rural population.

In some countries, such as Mexico and India, with the increase in urban fer-
tility, the differentials are narrowing.l2

A more detailed account of fertility rates in India by Kingsley Davis
shows that rural-urban fertility differentials have existed since 1891 and
there is no trend of widening or narrowing over the period up to 1941. An
inverse relationship between size of the city and fertility was reported
to be prominent. Differentials exist even between the larger and the smaller
cities. The three largest cities, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras, averaged
lower than the whole provinces of Bombay, Bengal and Madras respectively.

Differentials due to class, caste, occupation and socio-economic status were

 

llFreedman, Ronald., Baumert, Gerhard., Bolte, Martin, Expected Family

Size and Family Size Values in West Germany, The University of Michigan:
Program for Research in Population and Human Ecology, 1960, p. 146.

Robinson, Warren C., ”Urbanization and Fertility: The Non-Western
Experience,” The Milbank Memorial Fund anrterly, July 1963, Vol. XLI, No. 3.
pp. 295-297.

Davis, Kingsley, ”Human Fertility in India,” American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 52, pp. 244-246.

-17-

found to be pronounced. Religious differentials are discussed in terms of
Hindu and Moslem religious groups where the former affects the fertility
14

rate by emphasizing widow non-marriage. These differentials mentioned are
confirmed by the United Nations report. As in the case of other countries,
here too, agricultural groups tend to have highest fertility rates. The
groups which have adopted the ideal of a small size family are relatively
few in number and do not help in bringing down the general fertility level.IS

Fertility rates according to occupational status in Brazil are higher
for employers than for employees which is contrary to what has been found
in other countries. This is primarily true of the rural areas. In Egypt
differentials are mainly based on religion. Moslems have higher fertility
than Catholics and urbanization does not seem to have affected the Moslems
in Cairo. Wide variations are found among the Jews of Palestine according
to their country of origin. Puerto Rice has higher fertility for its rural
population than its urban.‘6

Thus, in most countries the general pattern in differentials is one of
widening with the process of urbanization, then contracting over time as the
practice of contraception Spreads. But in some of the underdeveIOped and
overpopulated countries, differentials are still wide and the process of
contraction is very slow. Having briefly examined differentials on a world-

wide scOpe, let us now consider residential and age-group differentials in

the United States.

 

mlbid” p. 251.
' ISUnited Nations, Department of Social Affairs, The Determinants and the
Conse uences of P0 ulation Trends, Pepulation Studies No. 17, New York:
United Nations, 1953. PP. 95-93.

16
[hides PP. 94-950

-18-

Rural-Urban Differentials in the United States
Rural-urban differentials in the United States have existed for a long
time and various explanatory theories have been developed. These differentials
were explained by some early demOgraphers in terms of the biological capacity
of population, environmental conditions, use of contraceptives and others.
Grabill, Kiser and Whelpton give a brief account of fertility differentials
in the colonial period, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Rural-
urban differentials were receiving attention in the United States as early
as 1750, but since only five per cent of the population lived in urban areas,
they were not of great demographic import. These differentials were attributed
to relatively fewer married adults and later marriage in cities than on farms.17
There were some old and simple methods of contraception used during this period
and their usage could be the main factor causing differential fertility.
Kiser has shown graphically that the trend of decline in fertility during
the periods 1800-1840 and 1910-1950 was similar, widening at first and then
18
narrowing. Further, accounting for urban and rural declines he writes:
“Between 1810 and 1840, on a national basis, both the urban and rural
ratios of children under five years old declined by about two hundred
children per 1,000 women; between 1840 and 1910, the decline amounted
to about two hundred thirty in the urban population and three hundred
fifty in the rural p0pu1ation; and between 1910 and 1940 the decline
amounted to about one hundred sixty in the urban population and two
hundred thirty in the rural population. Thus, absolute differences in
urban and rural fertility narrowed over the years, as measured by ratios

of young children to women.

In 1810 the national fertility ratio was similar to the rural fertility

 

'7Grabill, Wilson H., Kiser, Clyde V., Whelpton, Pascal K., The Fertility
of American Women, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958, p. 11.

18
Kiser, Clyde V., ”Differential Fertility in the U.S.“, in Demggrgphic
Qfld Economic Change in Developed Countries, Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1960, pp. 80, 81.

lgGrabill, Kiser, Whelpton, Op. Cit., p. 16.

-19-

ratio, but as more people became urban residents the national ratio approached
the urban fertility ratio since the fertility ratio of urban areas was declin-
ing. This trend of narrowing between the rural and urban fertility was questioned
by Woofter. He writes that from 1910 to 1940 the differential widened instead
of contracted. He poses the problem of the measurement of indigenous fertility.
According to him the comparison of rural ratios of children under five years
of age to women of childbearing age is not comparable to urban ratios because
of the migration from rural to urban areas and the elimination of foreign-born
p0pu1ation.20 This suggests that differentials may not be due to a differential
in birth rates. Westoff concludes that between 1910 and 1940, the rural-urban
fertility differentials were more or less stable and the ratio of urban to
rural fertility fluctuated only between .54 and .60.21 Both have agreed that
an increase in urban birth rates has occurred and thereby the differential
narrowed. The fertility measurement used by Westoff is for the children under
five ever born to 1,000 women twenty to forty-four years old.

Kiser states that during the decade 1940-1950 the increase in urban
fertflity was 52 per cent, with rural areas showing only a 22 per cent gain.
Although the rural fertility has remained consistently higher than urban,
during the period from 1810 to 1940, the absolute decline was greater for

rural p0pu1ations than urban ones.22 At the national level ”rural fertility

has been higher in frontiers than in the settled areas, higher in the

 

20W'oofter, T. J., I'Trends in Rural and Urban Fertility Rates,” Rural
Sociology, Vol. XIII, 1948, pp. 3-9.

2‘W’estoff, Charles F., ”Differential Fertility in the U.S., 1900-1950,”
American Sociological Review, Vol. XIX, 1954, p. 554.

22Kiser, Op. Cit., p. 82.

-20-

subsistence agricultural than in the commericial agricultural areas, particu-
larly those of higher income. And for any given color or nativity group,
rural fertility has been higher in areas where educational and other Oppor-
tunities were more limited, lower in areas of greater Opportunity."23

Grabill confirms this in his discussion of the rural-urban differential
by regions and divisions of the United States. He compares the birth rates
of women of different age groups on the basis of rurality and urbanity of
the states. The number of children ever born to white women seventy to seventy-
four in 1910 was lowest for the mostly rural states, namely Maine, New
Hampshire and Vermont. The largely urbanized states such as Massachusetts,
Rhode Island and Connecticut had higher fertility than those rural states
mentioned above; but these states had a decreasing fertility ratio for
rural-nonfarm and rural-farm areas. Rural-farm fertility was lower than
urban because of the large percentage of foreign-born white women living in
urban areas. Grabill believes that differential fertility for the period
1910-1940 may be explained by the length of time which the area had been
settled.

The differentials discussed for the age group from forty-five to forty-
nine years are for the years 1910, 1940 and 1950. It was found that pre-
dominantly rural states had highest fertility and predominently urban states
had lowest. Data for the children ever born to white women twenty-five to
twenty-nine years old between 1940 and 1950 are not reliable Since migration
of women in this age group was heavy.

"Nationally, the fertility ratios increased in size by one hundred thirty

children per 1,000 women in urban areas; by one hundred thirty in
rural-nonfarm areas; and by one hundred ten in rural-farm areas. The

 

23Taeuber, Conrad, Taeuber, Irene B., The Chagging_£opulation of the
United States, New York; John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. P. 262.

-2]-

majority of the states had absolute increases in fertility ratios of

about these magnitudes in urpzn and rural areas, regardless of the

level of fertllity In 1940.”

Grabillzs reports that the total number of children born to women
fifteen to forty-nine in 1910 and 1950 is lower in urban areas than rural-
nonfarm or rural-farm areas. This holds true for all the age-groups when
broken into groups of five years. In some cases rural-nonfarm is higher
than rural-farm. The greatest number of children are born to the women in
age-group twenty-five to twenty-nine years old. Data for 1952 on the number
of children ever born per 1,000 white women by age, marital status, and size
of urban and rural areas show that the number of children was larger in
rural-farm areas than in rural-nonfarm and urban areas. When urbanized
areas are classed by size, the number of children is lower for the larger
urbanized areas than the smaller urbanized areas. The smallest urbanized
area had lower fertility than both rural-nonfarm and rural-farm areas.26

When the fertility ratio of white women once married is analyzed by the
age of women and husbands' occupation, there is general decline in the
fertility ratio for all age-groups, at all occupational levels. The per-
centage of change in fertility ratios in 1940 from that of 1910 is generally
larger for all occupational groups in urban areas than in rural-farm areas.
In quite a few cases, the change in rural-nonfarm areas exceeds the percentage

change in urban areas for the reSpective occupational level and age-group.

Detailed figures for the number of children ever born in each age-group

 

24
25
26

Grabill, Kiser, Whelpton, Op, Cit., p. 69.
lbid., p. 73 (table 25).
lbid., p. 89 (table 31).

27lbid., p. 122 (table 49).

-22-

of white women, by residential category and occupational level are analyzed
for the years 1910, 1940 and 1950. These data Show clearly that the number
of children was lower in 1940 than in 1910 for all age groups of women by
residential categories and occupational levels. However, the number of
children in all categories increased fom 1940 to 1950, with the runi-farm
ratio the highest, rural-nonfarm intermediate,and the urban ratio the lowest.
The differential between rural-farm and urban has been decreasing. There are
variations in differentials among various occupational and age-groups with
no definite pattern.28

The fertility ratio is also found to be inversely related to the level
of education in all residential areas. At each education level, the rural-
farm ratio tends to be higher than rural-nonfarm and rural-nonfarm higher
than the urban. The rural-urban differentials are almost the same in 1940
as in 1950.29

Fertility differentials for women in the labor force Show that in all
residential groups, women who are in labor force have fewer children than
those not in the labor force. All age-groups of rural-farm women who are
in the labor force have higher fertility than respective age-groups of women
in the labor force in rural-nonfarm areas. Rural-nonfarm ratios were higher
than those in urban areas.30 These findings are confirmed by Kiser in a
report at the conference of the Universities' National Bureau Committee for

31
Economic Research.

 

zalbidn pp. 131,-132, (table 5h).
29

3

lbid., pp. 205, (table 76).

olbid., pp. 265, (table 95).
31

 

Kiser, Op, Cit., Chapter 3.

It has been shown that there is a marked difference between the rural-
nonfarm and rural-farm population in their type of county distribution.

For the entire United States, the fertility ratio is inversely related to

the degree of urbanization of the county in which the rural population is

located and the tendency is greater in rural-farm than rural-nonfarm p0pu-
lations.32

Another general pattern noticed by Duncan, Grabill and Bogue is that
rural-farm and rural-nonfarm p0pu1ation of metrOpolitan counties had lower
fertility ratios than the corresponding parts of non-metropolitan counties.
It is, then, assumed that a rural community in proximity of a large urban
center may have even lower fertility ratio than the urban place of less
than 25,000.

This suggests the strong impact of urbanization on declining fertility
rates. Bernard Okun provides evidence to test this impression. He hypothe-
sized that if the rural birth ratio is greater than the urban birth ratio,
it should be the case that states which have a larger preportion of their
p0pu1ation living in urban areas would tend to have a lower refined birth
ratio. By using correlation analysis, he found that there is an association
between the states with low ranks in the ratio of children zero to four to
women aged fifteen to forty-four and states with high ranks in the pr0portion

33
of peOple living in urban areas. Urbanization is measured in terms of

 

32Duncan, Otis D., Reiss, Albert J., Social Characteristics of Urban and
Rural Communities 1959, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956:p. 39.

33Bernard Okun has made it clear that this measurement (children to
women of childbearing age) is not possible to obtain before 1910.
Okun, Bernard., Trends in Birth Rates in the United States Since 1870,
Baltimore: The John Hepkins Press, 1958, pp. 53-55.

-24-

women fifteen to forty-four living in an urban area. Further, he examines
the validity of the hypothesis by making observations on the increasing
urbanization of states and decreasing refined birth rates. On the basis

of the coefficient of correlation, he found that the states which experienced
a smaller increase in the number of people living in urban areas were the
states which experienced larger percentage declines in the refined birth

34

ratio within their urban and rural districts. He examined all the states
for two periods, 1910 to 1930, and 1930 to 1950 and found that in some states
birth rates declined even with decreasing urbanization. The findings suggest
that urbanization by itself does not cause a decline in fertility ratios.
However, urbanization, in combination with other factors such as ecnomic
development and social change contribute to a fluctuating birth rate.

Okun further hypothesized that population redistribution35 in urban
areas may have contributed to the decline in birth rates. His hypothesis
is that urban intensification contributed to the decline of the
urban refined birth ratio. From the findings, he concluded that it does
account for a small part of the decline in fertility in the urban area and,
therefore, he did not reject the hypothesis.

If urbanization or intensification of urbanization do not account much
for the decline in fertility, what factors account for the persistence of
rural-urban differentials? Okun has quoted Warren Thompson who suggested

that degree of rurality of a state's population has greater influence on

the rural fertility.

 

Bthid” p. 58.

35Here Okun refers to it as the proportion of urban intensification which
suggests the nature of urban dwellers among communities of different sizes
rather than pr0portion of people living in urban areas.

-25-

"Where a large part of the p0pu1ation of a state is rural, there the

attitudes of mind and habits of life of the entire p0pu1ation tend

to be those distinctive of rural dwellers; but where a large part of

the p0pu1ation is urban, the attitudes of mind and habits of life

characteristic of urban dwellers tend to permeate the entire community,
at least as regards births. Even the rural population of a highly
urbanized state has a lower ratio of children than in a more rural
state.”3
This statement is supported by Okun's positive correlation of rural and urban
fertility ratios, i.e. states with high urban fertility rates also tend to
have high rural fertility.37
Rural-Urban Differentials in Michigan

The state of Michigan is highly urbanized. Since all the large cities
are situated in the south, we would eXpect that the rural areas in southern
part of the lower peninsula would have lower fertility than the rural
areas of northern part of the lower peninsula and upper peninsula due to
their proximity to urban centers. What is the general situation of differ-
entials for the state of Michigan since 1940?

The report, ”Differential Birth Rates in Michigan", indicates that the
urban residents had a fertility ratio of 295 compared to 467 for the rural-
farm p0pu1ation in 1940. This report also indicates that the ratio for the
urban dwellers IS thirty-five per cent below that of the rural-nonfarm seg-
ment of the population.38 Variations among rural-farm fertility ratios

depend on the location of the area in the state. The highest fertility was

found for those rural-farm areas which are isolated fiom the big cities in

 

36lbid., p. 81. Quote taken from Warren S. Thompson, Ratio of Children
to Women, 1920, p. 91.

37Ibid., pp. 82-83.

38Beegle, Allan J., Differential Birth Rates in Michigan, East Lansing:
Michigan State College, Agricultural Experiment Station, Section of Sociology
and AnthrOpology, 1948, p. 9.

-26-

the northern part of the lower peninsula and the eastern part of the upper
peninsula. The lowest rural-farm fertility ratio was found in those counties
containing a large city in the southern-most part of the state and western
part of the upper peninsula. ”Thus the data for Michigan indicate a clear
association between birth rate and place of residence.”39 Furthermore,
fertility levels in Michigan in 1940 were inversely related to size of urban
center and to the type of farming. Areas with commericalized farming had
lower rates of reproduction than self-sufficient farming areas. Analysis
of other kinds of farming indicates that the economy of the areas has a
relation to fertility ratio.

Another report on Michigan's changing population supplies information
on the increase in birth rates for the three residential categories. Statis-
tics for 1940 and 1950 show that increase for rural-farm areas was lowest,
that is, eighty-nine children under five years for every 1,000 women fifteen
to forty-nine years old; while the increase for rural-nonfarm and urban
areas was one hundred thirty-one and one hundred twenty-four respectively.
In general, a greater increase in fertility took place in the areas marked
by lower fertility before.4] Comparing the fertility ratio in 1950 to that
of 1960, it seems that birth rates increased for both areas, and differentials
have narrowed. Still higher rural than urban fertility rates persist.“2

In summary, it is evident from the foregoing discussion that differentials

 

39lbid., p. 14.

holbid., pp. 19-22.

1

Beegle, Allan J., Halstead, Donald, Michigan's Changing P0pulation,
East Lansing: Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station,
1957. pp. 12-14.

#ZBeegle, Allan J., Phadtare, Hambir, Rice, Rodger, and Thaden, John F.,
Michigan Population 1960, East Lansing; Michigan State University, Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, 1962, p. 28.

for rural-urban areas have
In the period from 1910 to
was found to be narrowing.

Michigan as well as in the

-27-

existed for many years and in diverse cuhures.
1940, the rural-urban fertility differential
However, the differential still persists in

United States.

Chapter 3. - Residential Differentials in Fertility

This chapter presents the empirical evidence bearing upon the hypotheses
stated in Chapter 1. AS indicated previously, the data utilized to test the
hypotheses refer to white women in selected age-groups, categorized by rural-
farm, rural-nonfarm and urban residence. These data refer to state Economic
Areas of Michigan in 1960 and derive from the 1960 Census of P0pulation.
State, Economic Areas, more or less homogeneous groups of counties, were
utilized as the smallest sub-unit of the state's p0pu1ation in order to ensure
a sufficiently large base for the computation of fertility rates. The
measure used is the number of children ever born per thousand white ever
married women divided into three age groups between 15 and 45.

Based upon previous studies of the residential differential in fertility,
previous studies of fertility in Michigan, and general knowledge of the character
of Michigan's population, it is hypothesized that systematic differences by
residence exist in 1960. However, the magnitude of the residential differen-
tial has been narrowing over time and evidence suggests that no great gulf
separates urban and rural pe0ple. Furthermore, the change in the rural-farm
definition in 1960 served to alter the character of the farm p0pu1ation
itself. Such forces raise doubt regarding the existence of residential dif-

ferences in fertility in 1960.

W

The first hypothesis considered here may be stated as follows:
The ratio of children ever born per 1,000 white ever married women will

be highest in rural-farm, intermediate in rural-nonfarm, and lowest in urban

-23-

r )

2.1

-29-

Table 1

Rank of ratios of children to women 15-44 by residence and metro-
politan and non-metrOpolitan status, Michigan 1960

 

 

 

 

 

Metr0politan ReS1dence
Non-EggrOpolitan Urban Rural-nonfarm Rural-farm
SEA

Total of all Areas 3 2 1
Metropolitan Areas

Total 3 2 1
Area A 3 2 1
Area B 3 2 1
Area C 3 2 1
Area D 3 2 1
Area E 3 2 1
Area F 3 2 1
Area G 3 2 1
Area H 3 2 1
Area J 3 2 l
Non-MetrOpolitan Areas

Total 3 2 1
Area 1 3 2 1
Area 2 3 2 1
Area 3 3 2 1
Area 4 3 2 1
Area 5 3 2 1
Area 6 3 2 1
Area 7 3 2 1
Area 8 3 2 1
Area 9 3 2 l

 

-30-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Metropolitan Areas

 

A - Saginaw County"
B - Kent-County

.C - Bay County

0 - Genessee County
E

F

 

 

 

 

 

 

_;- Clinton, Eaton, and
- Ingham Counties~

-- Macomb, Oakland and
Wayne Counties
G g Kalamazoo County
H731? Jackson County
J - thhtenaw County

 

Figure 1 State Economic Areas of Michigan, 1960

       
 
      
   
     
   

 
 

         
         
      
   

- O r v
0 O . . :0. :0: D:.:..
‘. .flaufivacoa§5flf“vzo
ewangnfdzoc3gdflfgtfx‘fgo
C ......0 .Q“ ..:.. ‘0‘... O ’0.....
‘ 9 9'9'
«h3J5‘CQ‘9wfl’ngfifwa,o
.';Oawc.fi,‘91;0c>o
0’0. ’ ’ 0 ’9 '0’.
. .Q. . . . O- O O
0’3”;
0 O

9
e

 

Figure 2
Ratio v‘ Ci'ldrwn ever

Eorr per 1000 Wiite ever
"'errie«1.Wonii—w A;ed 15 to 44

3:. Lowest Qwar‘er
\\

@ Th: rd .2. ai-zei
8W

 

 

 
  
 
 

e
'.'.'.0 0'...I

0 .
‘3NQPON5'3'
e 03.10... 1 . . ... y. t

    
       
  
 

   
   
 

 

   
  
 

 

  
    
 
 

  
      
  
 
   
 
 
 

 

  
 

O O
.49“ ’1 ' NM 9...
O . .

e .0.

“pow '-
Nfi5fi' M530
’e‘...c O 6 Q
.\\\

  
 

  

  

.\\\\\V

Figure 2 Ratio of Children ever Born per 1000 White ever
Married Women Aged 15 to 44

        
  
   

-32-

population for each age-group of women.

The evidence bearing upon this hypothesis, summarized in tables 1,2,3
and 4 lend strong support to the existence of residential differentials as
anticipated. (Detailed data may be found in Appendix I.)

Table 1 shows the rank order of the level of fertility of white married
women 15 to 44 for the three residential groups in all areas and separately
for metropolitan and non-metropolitan State Economic Areas. See Figure l
for location of Michigan's SEA's. The data in Table I shows no case of de-

viation from the anticipated rank order for all three residential categories.
The lowest ratios among the three residential categories are found for urban
p0pu1ations for all State Economic Areas. The rank order also holds true

for each SEA. That is, the fertility ratio of urban residents of all SEA's

is lower than the rural-nonfarm residents which again is lower than the
fertility ratio of each reSpective rural-farm population. (For individual

SEA data, see Appendix Table).

Figure 2 shows the fertility ratio for women 15 to 44 having urban
residence, by SEA, in 1960. This figure (as well as Figures 3,4, and 5)
is plotted according to quartiles, from low to high fertility. The lowest
‘fertility ratios are found in metropolitan areas J, G, E, and F.I The next
higher level of fertility ratio includes areas 9, D, H, 6 and B. The third
level of urban fertility comprises areas 5, l, 7, 8, and A. The highest urban
fertility category includes areas C, 3, 4, and 2. MetrOpolitan area C, which

2
includes Bay City, has a high percentage of rural population which may have

 

The names of SEA's here and hereafter are mentioned in rank order.

2
Beegle Allan J., Phadtare Hambir, Rice, Rodger, and Thaden John F.,
Michigan Population 1960, Bulletin 438.

HUI .I ~D‘JI1I-pu'

-33-

 

‘0

    
  
  

L0

‘Cl

Figure 3
'Ratlo of Children ever

Born per 1000 Wlte ever
Married Women Aged 15 to 44

I‘¢{. Lowest Quarter

®| Second Quarter

flThird Quarter
”Highest Quarter

 

 

 
   

     
  

O

.\\\\\

  
  
 
 
 

 

   

e
‘0
e
a
.0

R.

    

Figure 3 Ratio of Children ever Born per 1000 White ever Married
Women Aged 15 to 44

-34-

Table 2

Rank of ratios of children to women 15-24 by residence and metro-
politan and non-metrOpolitan status, Michigan,l960

 

 

 

 

 

Metropolitan Residence

and
Non-metropolitan Urban Rural-nonfarm Rural-farm

SEA
Total of all Areas 3 l 2
Metropolitan Areas

Total 3 1 2
Area A 2 1 3
Area B 3 2 1
Area C 2 1 3
Area 0 3 2 1
Area E 3 2 1
Area F 3 l 2
Area G 3 2 1
Area H 3 l 2
Area J 3 l 2
Non-Metropolitan Areas

Total 3 l 2
Area I 3 Z 1
Area 2 2 l 3
Area 3 3 2 1
Area 4 3 2 1
Area 5 3 l 2
Area 6 2 1 3
Area 7 3 1 2
Area 8 3 l 2
Area 9 3 l 2

 

-35-

some effect on the fertility ratio. Generally, urban fertility is highest
in those portions of the state containing Small urban places.'

Figure 3 provides a comparison of the fertility ratios of rural-nonfarm
populations among all SEA's. Those areas which have the lowest fertility
ratio for urban residents do not necessarily have the lowest fertility ratio
for rural-nonfarm (or rural-farm residents). AS shown in Figure 3 the lowest
rural-nonfarm fertility ratios are found in SEA's J, 9, H and G and the
highest ratios are found In Areas 4, 5, 7, and 2. Ratios of children ever
born to rural-nonfarm white women tend to be lower in metrOpolitan SEA's
and in areas within commuting range of metrOpolitan centers. The eastern
part of the upper peninsula and the northern part of the lower peninsula,
however, exhibit high rural-nonfarm ratios.

Figure 4 shows the fertility ratio of rural-farm p0pu1ations in the
state by SEA's. The lowest fertility is found in areas G, J, H, and 9 while
the highest fertility ratio is found in the Areas 3, C, 2 and 4. Most of
the rural-farm areas in the southern part of lower peninsula have low ferti-
lity, possibly because of the influence of surrounding metropolitan areas.

The average fertility ratio for rural-farm areas is 3035 while that for
rural-nonfarm and urban areas are 2660 and 2414, reSpectively. MetrOpolitan
AreaSJ and G exhibit the lowest fertility for the entire population). On
the otherhand,non-metr0politan areas 2 and 4 have the highest fertility
ratio.

Considering the group of white married women aged 15 to 24, as shown in
table 2, exceptions are found in the expected pattern, both in metr0politan
and non-metrOpolitan areas. Except for areas A, C, 2 and 6, urban fertility
ranks lowest in both metropolitan and non-metrOpolitan areas. Areas B, D,

E, G, l, 3 and 4 show the expected pattern. Areas A, C, 2 and 6 have the

I
. , a P .
i l ‘i‘ I p I ‘ .1
. 3 . I r A I I
.- § .. I . . a v
'7 ' " . l H.
r‘ - "x . V - - ~ --
. - . ‘ - r. .- .
. 1 .. o
1 I P a 'fi
,. - a . .
I 1‘ P t I ‘ I I ‘

'\'\ 1" ‘ I‘
e 1
g 1 t T i
. . 1
r. ,- » l . , . z.
1 . . ,
'“1 ‘ r’ 1‘ ' "'\
. ,. .1 i .
,- ' , ‘ A pp A m -. .
I' I r l
. .
1 , . h
a .- 1.
\

(« f .. , . 1" . »
1
I I r
' r
1p r— r\ F" A - ,
i " t t . ' ‘
"\ p ’1 n r~ A r~ - - .. ’
f , ( I- . > u, I I I l
r- “I s l-
l p F i ‘

.
_ - ,- -
1 I
_ . .
‘ . r‘ n
1 .
l " '
. 1 1
‘ AN A . Ih
I . u .l 1.
r , 1 ' f‘
I I 1 .\ 1.
1
l
t
‘ a.
; “I "\

. .
. I '\
«A t ,2 p.
11 . l .
a“ ~,‘ no '
I \ 1 t
. o

I
.’ ,
7‘,
‘11 . 1
a. i
r- A- i » r-
1 .
.- A —,~ —.
.1 . .I 1 . ‘l
1 , .
’ ’ 1 "l V I
11
‘ r -

itlrai arm

 

 

Ratio of Ciildren ever
Barn per 10110 NI"; It: ever
Married Women Al'leili 15 to 44

 

v‘

135 .‘ Lowe 1, r Qt'ar ti: r

‘
m Semi-'10 Qtrarter
@ Third Quarter
mHIQh'“, Qatari-er

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 Ratio of children ever born per 1000 white ever
married women aged 15 to 44

-37-

Table 3

Rank of ratios of children to women 25-34 by residence and metro-
politan and non-metrOpolitan status, Michigan, 1960

 

 

 

 

 

Metropolitan Residence

and . Urban Rural-nonfarm Rural-farm
Non-metropolitan

SEA
Total of all Areas 3 2 l
MetrOpolitan Areas

Total 3 2 1
Area A 3 2 1
Area B 3 2 1
Area C 3 2 1
Area 0 3 2 1
Area E 3 2 1
Area F 3 2 1
Area G 3 1 2
Area H 3 2 1
Area J 3 2 l
Non-Metropolitan Areas

Total 3 2 1
Area 1 3 2 1
Area 2 3 2 1
Area 3 3 2 1
Area A. 3 2 1
Area 5 3 2 1
Area 6 3 2 1
Area 7 3 2 1
Area 8 3 2 1
Area 9 3 2 l

 

-33-

Table 4

Rank of ratios of children to women 35-44 by residence and metropolitan
and non-metrOpolitan status, Michigan, 1960

 

 

 

MetrOpolitan Residence

and , Urban Rural-nonfarm Rural-farm
Non-metropolltan

SEA
Total of all Areas 3 2 l

 

Metropolitan Areas

 

Total 3 2 1
Area A 3 2 1
Area B 3 2 1
Area C 3 2 1
Area 0 3 2 1
Area E 3 2 1
Area F 3 2 1
Area C 3 l 2
Area H 3 2 1
Area J 3 2 l
Non-Metropolitan Areas

Total 3 2 1
Area 1 3 2 1
Area 2 3 2 I
Area 3 3 2 1
Area 4 3 2 1
Area 5 3 2 1
Area 6 3 2 1
Area 7 3 2 1
Area 8 3 2 1
Area 9 3 2 1

 

-39-

lowest ratio in rural-farm, intermediate for urban and highest for rural-
nonfarm. The areas which are in disagreement with the hypothesis do not
show any apparent peculiar characteristic which might help to understand the
findings. As summarized in Table 2, in aggregate and for more than half of
the metrOpolitan and non-metrOpolitan SEA's, the fertility of white married
women 15 to 24 in the rural-nonfarm population stands highest among the
residence groups.

The age-groups of white married women 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 (see tables
3 and 4) conform to the hypothesis, except for one case in both age-groups
in one metrcpolitan area. Area G, for both age groups of white married
women has higher fertility ratios in rural-nonfarm than in rural-farm areas.
This area is highly urbanized.3

In summary, hypothesis 1 is generally supported. The predicted rank
of fertility level does not hold true for the age group of women 15-24 years
of age. In this case, the rural-nonfarm population outranks the rural-farm
p0pu1ation in about two-thirds of the SEA's. 0n the one hand, this difference
may signify the beginning of a change in fertility differentials by residence.
On the other hand, it may merely be a reflection of the ”up-grading” of the
rural-farm p0pu1ation brought about by more rigid definition procedures in

l960.

Hypothesis 11
Further residential differentials are assumed in terms of metropolitan
and non-metrOpolitan SEA's of the State. Since fertility differentials exist

for the three residential categories (with the exception of one age group),

 

31bid., p. 21.

-40-

Table 5

Ratio of children ever-born per 1,000 white ever-married women in
metrOpolitan versus non-metrOpolitan State Economic Areas, by
residence and age group of women, Michigan, 1960

 

Metropolitan and Non-
MetrOpolitan SEA

Age Group of Women

 

 

15-44 15-24 25-34 35-44
MetrOpolitan Areas
Total 2342.1 1289.9 2484.3 2627.3
Urban 2294.9 1258.6 2434.4 2567.7
Rural-nonfarm 2586.7 1468.2 2751.6 2965.9
Rural-farm 2965.0 1425.3 3055.2 3326.9
Non-metropolitan Areas
Total 2630.9 1433.7 2790.6 3049.8
Urban 2453.0 1321.6 2633.3 2818.3
Rural-nonfarm 2663.5 1514.5 2837.0 3119.9
Rural-farm 3064.4 1425.8 3132.1 3424.7

 

 

Figure 5

Ratio of Children ever
Born per 1000 White ever
Married Women Aged 15 to 44

 

. Lowest Quarter

IEE§§ Second Quarter

E Third Quarter
m Highest Quarter

 

 

 

Figure 5 Ratio of Children ever Born per 1000 White ever'
Married Women Aged 15 to 44

-42-

it is necessary to examine the effect of metrOpolitan status on the residence
categories. Thus, our second hypothesis is as follows:

The ratio of children ever born per 1,000 white ever married women will
be higher in non-metropolitan than in metropolitan State Economic Areas for
each residence and age-group of women.

Figure 5 shows the fertility ratio for the total population regardless
of residence and age-group category. It is clear that areas of high fertility
are situated in the northern half of the lower peninsula and in the upper
peninsula. Except metrOpolitan areas A and C, all other metrOpolitan areas
are in the first and second quarter of the index and none of the non-metro-
politan areas fall into the lowest quarter in fertility.

Table 5 shows that the ratio of children ever born per 1,000 white ever
married women in non-metropolitan areas is greater than the ratio in metro-
politan area. This is true for all residential categories and age-groups.
of women. Only one difference - that between non-metrOpolitan rural-farm
and metropolitan rural-farm ever married white women 15 to 24 years of age
is negligible. These findings support the hypothesis that the fertility ratio
is higher for non-metropolitan areas than metrOpolitan areas.

The difference between total non-metropolitan and total metropolitan
fertility ratio lies between 11 and 16 percent for all age groups. Differences
between total urban non-metropolitan and metropolitan, total rural-nonfarm
non-metropolitan and metrOpolitan and total rural-farm non-metropolitan and
metrOpolitan is 5 to 10 percent, 3 to 5 percent and O to 3 percent, respectively.
The smallest percentage difference is found in rural-farm non-metropolitan
and metrOpolitan areas. MetrOpolitan and non-metrOpolitan status does not

appear to make much difference for rural-farm category.

-43-

Table 6

Range among SEA's in ratios of children ever born per 1,000 white
ever married women in metrOpolitan versus non-metropolitan State
Economic Areas by residence and age group of women, Michigan 1960

 

MetrOpolitan and Non-

Age Group of Women

 

MetrOpolitan SEA

 

 

15-44 15-24 25-34 35-44
MetrOpolitan Areas
Total POpulation 2094(J) 947(J) 2209(J) 2665(J)
2641 (c) 1465(0) 2714(c) 3120(0)
Urban 1965(J) 893(J) 2113(J) 2515(F)
2528(c) 1428(0) 2618(H) 2980(c)
Rural-Nonfarm 2366(J) 1149(J) 2445(J) 2763(0)
2716(A) 1609(c) 2892(A) 3265(0)
Rural-Farm 2603(4) 911(0) 2521(J) 3026(J)
3371(0) 1654(0) 3550(8) 3862(C)
Non-metrOpolitan
Area Total
Population 2459(9) 1363(6) 2650(9) 2818(9)
2875(2) 1535(3) 2982(2) 3384(2)
Urban 2317(9) 1240(5) 2559(6) 2581(9)
2704(2) l399(4) 2882(4) 3228(2)
Rural-Nonfarm 2485(9) 1445(6) 2641(9) 2944(9)
2991(2) 1704(2) 3073(2) 3516(2)
Rural-farm 2837(9) 1259(6) 2979(5) 3113(9)
1782(3) 3656(2) 3915(4)

3473(4)

 

Table 6 points out the areas of highest and lowest fertility ratios,
by residence group, age-group of women, and metrOpolitan status. Area J,
Washtenaw County, is lowest in fertility in 14 out of 16 comparisons. Area C,
Bay County, has the highest ratio in 9 out of 16 of the comparisons. Area D,
appears three times with the highest fertility ratio and area A appears twice
in this category. Note that the Detroit metrOpolitan area (Afea F) which is
the most urbanized area, is intermediate among the metropolitan areas in
fertility level.

Among non-metrOpolitan areas, area 9 appears frequently as having the
lowest fertility level. If we consider the influence of urbanized areas
on the surrounding non-metropolitan papulation, thenion-metrOpolitan areas
7 and 8 should have lower ratios than others. Next to the lowest fertility
rank is found in area 6. At the same time it is noteworthy that table 6
shows area 2 as the most fertile among most of the residential categories
and by age groups of women. Areas 4 and 3 are next to appear in the same
rank order. (See also Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5.)

In general, the hypothesis that the ratio will be higher in non-metro-
politan than in metrOpolitan State Economic Areas ls accepted on the ground

of empirical evidence.

Hypothesis 111
These findings lead us to attempt to predict the range of differentials
among different residential categories in metropolitan and non-metrOpolitan
areas. Thus, the third hypothesis is as follows:
Residential differentials (rural-farm versus urban, rural-nonfarm versus
urban and rural-farm versus rural-nonfarm), in the ratio of children ever born

per 1,000 white ever married women, by age group of women will be greater

-

 

-45-

Table 7

Percent by which the ratio of children ever born per 1,000 white ever
married women, by age group of women in the rural-farm population exceeds
that of the urban population for metrOpolitan and non-metropolitan State
Economic Areas, Michigan, 1960

 

 

Age group of Metropolitan Non-metropolitan Differential greater
Wbmen in non-metropolitan
than in metrOpolitan
15-44 29.2 24.9 ---
15-24 13.2 7.9 ---
25-34 25.5 19.0 ---
35-44 29.6 21.5 ---

 

-46-

Table 8

Percent by which the fertility ratio by age group of women in the
rural-nonfarm population exceeds that of the urban p0pu1ation for
metrOpolitan and non-metrOpolitan State Economic Areas, Michigan, 1960

 

Age group of Metropolitan Non-metropolitan Differential greater
Women in non-metropolitan
than in metropolitan

 

IS-Ml' 1207 8.6 —--
15-24 16.6 14.6 ---
25-34 13.1 7.7 ---
315-44 15.5 10.7 ---

 

-47-

Table 9

Percent by which the fertility ratio by age group of women in the rural-
farm population exceeds that of the rural-nonfarm population for metro-
politan and non-metrcpolitan State Economic Areas, Michigan, 1960

 

Age group of Metropolitan Non-metrOpolitan Differential greater
Women in non-metropolitan
than in metropolitan

15-44 1

4.6 15.0 +
15-24 - 2.9 - 5.9 +
25-34 11.0 10.4 -
35-44 12.2 9.8 -

 

-43-

in non-metropolitan than in metropolitan State Economic Areas.

The expected higher ratio of children ever born per 1,000 white ever
married women, by age group of women, is found greater for rural-farm popula-
tion than urban population in both metropolitan and non-metrOpolitan areas.
However, the assumption that the differential would be greater in non-metro-
politan than metrOpolitan is proved false by our evidence. Table 7 shows that
for each age group of women, the percentage by which the rural-farm population
exceeds that of urban is greater for metropolitan than non-metrOpolitan areas.
The difference is about 4, 5, 6, and 8 percent.

The expected higher ratio of children ever born per 1,000 white ever
married women by age-group of women is found greater for rural-nonfarm p0p-
u1ation than urban population in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.
But, as in the case of rural-farm and urban, here too, the differential is
not greater for non-metropolitan than metrOpolitan. As shown in table 8,
metropolitan differentials are about 4 to 5 percent higher than non-metro-
politan, except for the age group of 15 to 24 where it is 2 percent greater
than non-metrOpolitan.

Table 9 shows the percentage differentials for rural-farm and rural-
nonfarm p0pu1ation. Here we find two cases which are in agreement with our
expectation. For the total p0pu1ation of women 15-44, the differentials are
greater for non-metropolitan than metropolitan areas by only 4 percent. The
fertility ratio in metropolitan areas for the age-group of 15 to 24 is greater
for rural-nonfarm than rural-farm by 2.9 percent and for non-metrOpolitan
areas for the same age-group rural-nonfarm ratio is higher than the rural-farm
by 5.9 percent. For the age groups 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 the fertility
ratio again is higher for rural-farm than rural-nonfarm in both metropolitan

and non-metrOpolitan areas and metrOpolitan differentials are greater than

non-metrOpolitan.

On the whole, hypothesis III is rejected.

Chapter 4. - Summary and Conclusions

The major concern of this study is residential differences in fertility
in Michigan in 1960. The data used derive from the 1960 Census of Papula-
tion and are restricted to white women, classified by age and residence.

The unit of analysis is the State Economic Area, generally a multi-county

unit which is more or less economically and sotially distinct from surrounding
areas. The measure of fertility used is the number of children ever born

per 1,000 ever married white women.

Two major reasons for undertaking the present Study may be made explicit.
First, in view of the known narrowing of rural-urban fertility differentials
in the United States, it seemed justifiable to seek an answer to the question
of their existence in 1960. It was felt that the use of a highly urban state
such as Michigan would offer a rigorous test. Second, the use of new criteria
to delineate the rural-farm p0pu1ation in 1960 served to make this aggregate
more homogeneous and to "up-grade” its character. This event raised the
question concerning the level of fertility of this p0pu1ation and seemed to
suggest that rural-farm versus urban differentials might be reduced.

The data were analyzed in such a way as to test three hypotheses. The
first hypothesis was generally supported by the data. Ratios of children
ever born per 1,000 ever-married white women were highest in rural-farm,
lowest in urban, and intermediate for rural-nonfarm areas. This ranking by
residence holds true for each age group of women except those aged 15 to 24.
In this instance rural-nonfarm white women generally outrank rural-farm

women in fertility level.

-51-

The data alpport the second hypothesis, namely, that fertility ratios
are higher in non-metrOpolitan areas than in metrOpolitan areas for each
residence and age group of women. In only one comparison was the difference
negligible: that for rural-farm women aged 15 to 24. But even in this
instance the non-metrOpolitan fertility level was higher than the metrOpolitan
fertility level.

The third hypothesis, which predicted that residential differentials by
age group of white women would be greater in non-metrOpolitan than metro-
politan areas, proved to be largely incorrect. While the rural-farm ratio
exceeded the urban ratio by about 8 to 30 percent, the magnitude of this
differential was greater in metropolitan than non-metrOpolitan areas for each
age group of women. Similarly, the rural-nonfarm ratio was in excess of the
urban ratio by approximately 8 to 17 percent but the size of this differential
was always greater in metrOpolitan than in non-metrOpolitan a'eas. Finally,
while the ruIi-farm ratio exceeded the rural-nonfarm ratio (except for age
group 15 to 24) by as much as 15 percent, this differential was greater in
non-metropolitan than metrOpolitan areas only for women 15 to 44 and for women
15 to 24. Thus, the data generally support the Opposite of the hypothesis
as stated.

As predicted, this study shows that residential differences in fertility
were apparent in 1960. Fourthermore, the aggregates delineated by the
application of residence criteria are sufficiently distinct so that regularized
patterns of fertlity are manifested. In fertility behavior in Michigan,
residents of rural-farm areas rank highest, residents of urban areas rank
lowest, and residents of rural-nonfarm areas rank in an intermediate posifion.

Levels of rural-farm and rural-nonfarm fertility, however, are relatively

-52-

similar. In fact,-rura1nonfarm married women 15 to 24 years of age exhibit
higher fertility than rural-farm women. It may be that the explanation of
this reversal in expectation is due to an allocation of lowersocio-economic
elements to the rural-nonfarm population which would have been classified as
rural-farm in earlier censuses.

The study strongly reflects the importance of urbanization in the
determination of fertility levels. In all instances, metrOpolitan status
reduced fertility level when age and residence category were controlled. In
other words, the presence of a large urban center appears to depress fertility
levels for the surrounding rural population aggregates. However, the mag-
nitude of residence group differentials in fertflity were generally larger
within the metrOpolitan than the non-metrOpolitan areas. Why the rural-farm
versus urban fertility differential, for example, should be greater in
metrOpolitan than non-metrOpolitan areas is not clear. Contrary to expectation,
the same situation generally prevailed with reSpect to rural-nonfarm versus
urban and rural-farm versus rural-nonfarm differentials. Apparently, norms
regarding family Size are shared by all segments of the population outside
metrOpolitan to a greater extent than within metrOpolitan areas. At least

this appears to be the situation in Michigan as of 1960.

Ratios of Children Everborn to Women 15-44 by Residence and Age-Group

APPENDIX TABLE 1

in MetrOpolitan and Non-Metropolitan Status, Michigan, 1960

 

 

 

 

Tbtgl All Residencei§:oups Urban
15-44 15-24 25-34 35-44 15-44 15-24 25-34 35-44
TOTAL ALL AREAS 2426 1336. 2571 2748 2319 1270 2464 2606
Metropolitan Areas
Total 2342 1290 2484 2627 2295 1259 2434 2568
Area A 2594 1435 2699 3047 2506 1397 2583 2939
Area B 2476 1309 2650 2828 2431 1276 2616 2772
Area C 2641 1377 2714 3120 2528 1302 2606 2980
Area 0 2447 1465 2629 2762 2359 1428 2552 2659
Area E 2408 1322 2604 2809 2256 1210 2448 2656
Area F 2297 1262 2424 2541 2278 1252 2405 2515
Area G 2337 1311 2563 2663 2250 1227 2476 2616
Area H 2489 1430 2684 2754 2408 1401 2618 2675
Area J 2094 947 2209 2665 1965 893 2113 2548
Non-Metropolitan Areas
Total 2631 1434 2791 3050 2453 1322 2633 2818
Area 1 2565 1406 2739 2913 2449 1347 2635 2772
Area 2 2875 1480 2982 3384 2704 1329 2817 3228
Area 3 2713 1535 2829 3097 2538 1319 2574 2965
Area 4 2829 1497 2975 3369 2638 1399 2882 3054
Area 5 2705 1477 2839 3202 2448 1240 2643 2873
Area 6 2552 1363 2717 2931 2411 1288 2559 2776
Area 7 2664 1450 2850 3106 2471 1314 2695 2881
Area 8 2658 1431 2814 3030 2501 1318 2653 2827
Area 9 2459 1415 2650 2818 2317 1364 2569 2581

Rural-Nonfarm

Rural-Farm

 

 

15-44 15-24 25-34 35-44 15-44 15-24 25-34 35-44
Total All Areas 2635 1498 2805 3062_ _3038 1426 3111 3400
Metropolitan Areas
Total 2587 1468 2752" 2966 2965 1425 3055 3327
Area A 2716 1531 2892 3233 2954 1280 3014 3376
Area B 2566 1450 2689 2972 3266 .1475 3550 3487
Area C 2712 1609 2753 3265 3371 1150 3435 3862
Area 0 2696 1596 2860 3017 3105 1664 3101 3515
Area E 2637 1549 2864 '3071 2946 1609 3103 3223
Area F 2564 1394 2712 2921 2996 1333 2937 3381
Area G 2513 1520 2742 2763 2552 1626 2567 2740
Area H 2497 1468 2750 2791 2714 1445 2874 3270
Area J 2366 1149 2445 2847 2603 911 2521 3026
Non-MetrOpolitan Areas
Total 2664 1515 2837 3120 3064 1426 3132 3425
Area 1 2647 1457 2811 3031 3037 1571 3182 3198
Area 2 2991 1704 3073 3516 3469 1265 3656 3746
Area 3 2672 1614 2886 3008 3307 1782 3289 3589
Area 4 2742 1516 2913 3306 3478 1608 3430 3951
Area 5 2751 1624 2901 3332 2940 1409 2979 3346
Area 6 2650 1445 2816 3003 3015 1259 3139 3324
Area 7 2950 1530 2859 3088 3040 1399 3l01 3456
Area 8 2722 1506 2895 3119 3006 1396 3053 3411
Area 9 2485 1461 2641 2944 2836 1403 2994 3113

-54-

Bibliography

Beegle J. Allan, Differential Birth Rates in Michigan, Michigan State College,
Agricultural Experiment Station, Section of Sociology and Anthropology,
East Lansing, I948.

Beegle J. Allan, Halsted, Donald., Michigan's Changipg ngulation, Bulletin
415. '

Beegle, J. Allan, Phadtare, Hambir, Rice, Rodger, and Thaden, John F.,
Michigan Pppulation 1960, Bulletin 438, Michigan State University,
Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, 1962.

Bogue, Donald J., The Population of the United States, Glencoe, The Free
Press, 1959.

Bogue, Donald J., ”Economic Areas as a Tool for Research and Planning”,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 15, No. 3, June 1950.

Davis, Kingsley, ”Human Fertility in India”, American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 52, Number 3, November 1946.

Duncan, Otis 0., and Reiss, Albert J., Social Characteristics of Urban and
Rural Communitie§,_l95g, New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc., New
York, 1956.

Freedman, Ronald, Baumert, Gerhard, and Bolte, Martin, Expected Family Size
and Family Size Values in West Germany, The University of Michigan:
Program for Research in Population and Human Ecology, 1960.

Grabill, Wilson H., Kiser, Clyde V., and Whelpton, Pascal K., The Fertility
of American Wbmen, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

Johnson, Gwendolyn 2., ”Differential Fertility in EurOpean Countries" in
Demogpaphic and Economic Change in Developed Countries, Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1960.

Kiser, Clyde V., ”Differential Fertility in the United States”. in Demo-
graphic and Economic Change in Develpped Countries, Princeton,
Princeton University Press, 1958.

Okun, Bernard, Trends in Birth Rates in the United States Since 1870,
Baltimore: The John HOpkins Press, 1958.

Robinson, Warren C., ”Urbanization and Fertility: The Non-Western Experience”,
The Milbank Memorial Fund anrterly, July 1963, Vol. XLI, No. 3.

Smith T. Lynn, Fundamentals of ngulation Study, Chicago: J. B. Lippincott
Company, 1960.

-55-

Sorokin, Pitirim A., Zimmerman, Carle C., Principles of Rural-Urban Socio-
logy, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1929.

Sorokin, Pitiim A., Zimmerman, Carle C., Galpin, Charles J., Systematic
Source Book of Rural Sociojggy, Vol. 1, Minneapolis: The University
of Minnesota Press, 1930.

Taeuber, Conrad and Taeuber, Irene B., The Changing POpulation of the United
States, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

Thompson, Warren 5., Population Problems, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1953.

United Nations, Department of Social Affairs, The Determinants and the Con-
sequences of Population Trends,_P0pulation Studies, No. 17, New York:
United Nations, 1953.

United States Census of Population, 1960. Michigan General P0pulation
Characteristics, Report PC(I) 248, Washington D.C.: United States
Government Printing Office, 1961.

Westoff, Charles F., "Differential Fertility in the U.S., 1900-1950,”
American Sociological Review, Vol. XIX, 1954.

Woofter, T. J., ”Trends in Rural and Urban Fertility Rates”, Rural Sociology,
Vol. XIII, 1948.

I

 

lllllllllllllllllllll

SITY LIBRARIES
31293 031751104

IVER

I

III!

N
U
E
T

 

1 IGAN STA

llllllllllllll