Advertisement

Demography

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 449–465 | Cite as

The developmental paradigm, reading history sideways, and family change

  • Arland Thornton
Presidential Address

Abstract

The developmental paradigm, reading history sideways, and cross-cultural data have converged to exert a profound influence on social scientists and ordinary people. Through the use of these tools, social scientists of the 1700s and 1800s concluded that family patterns in northwest Europe had undergone many substantial changes before the early 1800s. These conclusions were accepted until the last several decades of the 1900s, when almost all were seriously challenged; many were declared to be myths. Further, the developmental paradigm, reading history sideways, and the conclusions of generations of social scientists created a package of ideas—developmental idealism—that subsequently became a powerful influence for family change in many parts of the world during the past two centuries. This developmental idealism has been a substantial force for changing living arrangements, marriage, divorce, gender relations, intergenerational relationships, and fertility.

Keywords

Socioeconomic Development Demographic Transition Fertility Decline Family Planning Program Development Review 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abray, J. 1975. “Feminism in the French Revolution.” American Historical Review 80(1):43–62.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, W. [1779] 1995. The History of Women From the Earliest Antiquity to the Present Time. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alwin, D.E. 1988. “From Obedience to Autonomy: Changes in Traits Desired in Children, 1924–1978.” Public Opinion Quarterly 52:33–52.Google Scholar
  4. Amin, S. 1989. Eurocentrism. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ashcraft, R. 1987. Locke’s Two Treatises on Government. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  6. Axinn, W.G. and S.T. Yabiku. 2001. “Social Change, the Social Organization of Families, and Fertility Limitation.” American Journal of Sociology 106:1219–61.Google Scholar
  7. Bailyn, B. 1967. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, K.M. 1990. Inventing the French Revolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Banister, J. 1987. China’s Changing Population. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Barber, J.S. and W.G. Axinn. 2001. “New Ideas and Fertility Limitations: The Role of Mass Media.” Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  11. Billings, J.S. 1893. “The Diminishing Birth-Rate in the United States.” Forum 15:467–77.Google Scholar
  12. Blaut, J.M. 1993. The Colonizer’s Model of the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  13. Bledsoe, C.H., J.B. Casterline, J.A. Johnson-Kuhn, and J.G. Haaga, eds. 1999. Critical Perspectives on Schooling and Fertility in the Developing World. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bongaarts, J. 1993. The Fertility Impact of Family Planning Programs. New York: Population Council.Google Scholar
  15. Bongaarts, J. and S.C. Watkins. 1996. “Social Interactions and Contemporary Fertility Transitions.” Population and Development Review 22:639–82.Google Scholar
  16. Brentano, L. [1910] 1992. “The Doctrine of Malthus and the Increase of Population During the Last Decades.” Population and Development Review 18:147–66.Google Scholar
  17. Brundage, J.A. 1987. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Bumpass, L. and H.-H. Lu. 2000. “Trends in Cohabitation and Implications for Children’s Family Contexts in the U.S.” Population Studies 54:29–42.Google Scholar
  19. Burguière, A., C. Klapisch-Zuber, M. Segalen, and F. Zonabend, eds. [1986] 1996. A History of the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Butler, M.A. 1978. “Early Liberal Roots of Feminism: John Locke and the Attack on Patriarchy.” American Political Science Review 72(1):135–50.Google Scholar
  21. Buxbaum, D.C. 1968. Family Law and Customary Law in Asia: A Contemporary Legal Perspective. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  22. Caldwell, J.C. 1982. Theory of Fertility Decline. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Caldwell, J.C. and P. Caldwell. 1986. Limiting Population Growth and the Ford Foundation Contribution. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
  24. Caldwell, J.C., P.H. Reddy, and P. Caldwell. 1988. The Causes of Demographic Change: Experimental Research in South India. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  25. Caplow, T., H.M. Bahr, and B.A. Chadwick. 1983. All Faithful People. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  26. Carr-Saunders, A.M. 1922. The Population Problem: A Study in Human Evolution. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  27. —. 1936. World Population: Past Growth and Present Trends. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  28. Casterline, J.B., ed. Forthcoming. Diffusion Processes and Fertility Transition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  29. Chesnais, J.-C. 1992. The Demographic Transition: Stages, Patterns, and Economic Implications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Cleland, J.G. 1985. “Marital Fertility Decline in Developing Countries: Theories and the Evidence.” Pp. 223–52 in Reproductive Change in Developing Countries, edited by J.G. Cleland and J. Hobcraft. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Cleland, J.G. and J. Hobcraft, eds. 1985. Reproductive Change in Developing Countries: Insights From the World Fertility Survey. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Cleland, J.G. and C. Wilson. 1987. “Demand Theories of the Fertility Transition: An Iconoclastic View.” Population Studies 41:5–30.Google Scholar
  33. Coale, A.J. and S.C. Watkins, eds. 1986. The Decline of Fertility in Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Condorcet, M. [1795] No date. Outlines of an Historical View of the Progress of the Human Mind. Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers.Google Scholar
  35. Cooper, B.M. 1997. Marriage in Maradi: Gender and Culture in a Hausa Society in Niger, 1900–1989. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  36. Cott, N.F. 2000. Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Critchlow, D.T. 1999. Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion and the Federal Government in Modern America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Dahl, G. and A. Rabo, eds. 1992. Kam-Ap or Take-Off: Local Notions of Development. Stockholm: Stockholm Studies in Social Anthropology.Google Scholar
  39. Davis, D. and S. Harrell, eds. 1993. Chinese Families in the Post-Mao Era. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  40. Davis, K. 1948. Human Society. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. d’Avray, D. 1985. “The Gospel of the Marriage Feast of Cana and Marriage Preaching in France.” Pp. 207–24 in The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley, edited by K. Walsh and D. Wood. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. Demeny, P. 1968. “Early Fertility Decline in Austria-Hungary: A Lesson in Demographic Transition.” Daedalus 97:502–22.Google Scholar
  43. Demos, J. 1970. A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Donahue, C., Jr. 1983. “The Canon Law on the Formation of Marriage and Social Practice in the Later Middle Ages.” Journal of Family History 8:144–58.Google Scholar
  45. Donaldson, P.J. 1990. Nature Against Us: The United States and the World Population Crisis, 1965–1980. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  46. Durkheim, E. [1892] 1978. “The Conjugal Family.” Pp. 229–39 in Emile Durkheim on Institutional Analysis, edited by M. Traugott. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. —. [1893] 1984. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  48. Ekirch, A.A., Jr. 1951. The Idea of Progress in America, 1815–1860. New York: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
  49. Engels, F. [1884] 1971. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Faria, V.E. and J.E. Potter. 1999. “Television, Telenovelas, and Fertility Change in North-East Brazil.” Pp. 252–72 in Dynamics of Values in Fertility Change, edited by R. Leete. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Ferguson, A. [1767] 1980. An Essay on the History of Civil Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  52. Finkle, J.L. and C.A. McIntosh. 1994. “The New Politics of Population: Conflict and Consensus in Family Planning.” Population and Development Review 20(supp.):3–34.Google Scholar
  53. Fliegelman, J. 1982. Prodigals and Pilgrims. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Freedman, R. 1979. “Theories of Fertility Decline: A Reappraisal.” Social Forces 58:1–17.Google Scholar
  55. —. 1997. “Do Family Planning Programs Affect Fertility Preferences? A Literature Review.” Studies in Family Planning 28(1):1–13.Google Scholar
  56. Ghimire, D.J., W.G. Axinn, and A. Thornton. 2001. “Social Change, Premarital Non-Family Experience, and Spouse Choice in an Arranged Marriage Society.” Working paper, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  57. Gies, F. and J. Gies. 1987. Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  58. Gillis, J.R. 1985. For Better, for Worse: British Marriages, 1600 to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Goldscheider, C. 1971. Population, Modernization, and Social Structure. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  60. Goode, W.J. [1963] 1970. World Revolution and Family Patterns. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  61. Gottlieb, B. 1980. “The Meaning of Clandestine Marriage.” Pp. 49–83 in Family and Sexuality in French History, edited by R. Wheaton and T.K. Hareven. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  62. Greenhalgh, S. 1996. “The Social Construction of Population Science: An Intellectual, Institutional, and Political History of Twentieth-Century Demography.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 38:26–66.Google Scholar
  63. Gruber, J. 1973. “Forerunners.” Pp. 25–56 in Main Currents in Cultural Anthropology, edited by R. Naroll and F. Naroll. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  64. Guzmán, J.M., S. Singh, G. Rodriguez, and E.A. Pantelides, eds. 1996. The Fertility Transition in Latin American. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  65. Hajnal, J. 1965. “European Marriage Patterns in Perspective.” Pp. 101–43 in Population in History, edited by D.V. Glass and D.E.C. Eversley. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  66. —. 1982. “Two Kinds of Preindustrial Household Formation System.” Population and Development Review 8:449–94.Google Scholar
  67. Hanawalt, B.A. 1986. The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Hareven, T.K., ed. 1977. Family and Kin in Urban Communities, 1700–1930. New York: New View Points.Google Scholar
  69. Hegel, G.W.F. [1837] 1878. Lectures on the Philosophy of History. London: George Bell.Google Scholar
  70. Herlihy, D. 1985. Medieval Households. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Hobbes, T. [1642] 1991. Man and Citizen, edited by B. Gert. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  72. —. [1651] 1996. Leviathan, edited by J.C.A. Gaskin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Hodgen, M.T. 1964. Early Anthropology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  74. Hodgson, D. 1983. “Demography as Social Science and Policy Science.” Population and Development Review 9:1–34.Google Scholar
  75. —. 1988. “Orthodoxy and Revisionism in American Demography.” Population and Development Review 14:541–69.Google Scholar
  76. Hodgson, D. and S.C. Watkins. 1997. “Feminists and Neo-Malthusians: Past and Present Alliances.” Population and Development Review 23:469–524.Google Scholar
  77. Hole, J. and E. Levine. 1984. “The First Feminists.” Pp. 543–56 in Women: A Feminist Perspective, 3rd ed., edited by J. Freeman. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.Google Scholar
  78. Hume, D. [1742] 1825. Essays and Treatises. Edinburgh: James Walker.Google Scholar
  79. Ingram, M. 1981. “Spousal Litigation in the English Ecclesiastical Courts, C1350–C1640.” Pp. 35–57 in Marriage and Society: Studies in the Social History of Marriage, edited by R.B. Outhwaite. London: Europa.Google Scholar
  80. Jato, M.N., C. Simbalakia, J.M. Tarasevich, D.N. Awasum, C.N.B. Kihinga, and E. Ngirwamungu. 1999. “The Impact of Multimedia Family Planning Promotion on the Contraceptive Behavior of Women in Tanzania.” International Family Planning Perspectives 25(2):60–67.Google Scholar
  81. Johnson, S.P. 1994. World Population-Turning the Tide: Three Decades of Progress. London: Graham and Trotman.Google Scholar
  82. Jones, G.W., R.M. Douglas, J.C. Caldwell, and R.M. D’Souza, eds. 1997. The Continuing Demographic Transition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Kirk, D. 1944. “Population Changes and the Postwar World.” American Sociological Review 9:28–35.Google Scholar
  84. Knibbs, G.H. 1928. The Shadow of the World’s Future. London: Ernest Benn.Google Scholar
  85. Knodel, J. and E. van de Walle. 1979. “Lessons From the Past: Policy Implications of Historical Fertility Studies.” Population and Development Review 5:217–45.Google Scholar
  86. Kobrin, F.E. 1976. “The Fall of Household Size and the Rise of the Primary Individual in the United States.” Demography 13:127–38.Google Scholar
  87. Kottak, C.P. 1990. Prime-Time Society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  88. Kraditor, A.S. 1965. The Ideas of the Woman Suffrage Movement. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Kussmaul, A. 1981. Servants in Husbandry in Early-Modern England. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Lapham, R.J. and G.B. Simmons, eds. 1987. Organizing for Effective Family Planning Programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  91. Laslett, P. [1965] 1984. The World We Have Lost: England Before the Industrial Age. 3rd ed. New York: Scribner’s.Google Scholar
  92. —, ed. [1972] 1974. Household and Family in Past Time. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Le Play, F. [1855–1881] 1982. Frederick Le Play on Family, Work and Social Change, edited by C.B. Silver. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  94. Lee, J.Z. and F. Wang. 1999. One Quarter of Humanity: Malthusian Mythology and Chinese Realities, 1700–2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Lee, K., G. Walt, L. Lush, and J. Cleland. 1995. Population Policies and Programmes: Determinants and Consequences in Eight Developing Countries. London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and United National Population Fund.Google Scholar
  96. Leete, R. and I. Alam, eds. 1993. The Revolution in Asian Fertility: Dimensions, Causes, and Implications. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  97. Lehmann, W.C. [1960] 1979. John Millar of Glasgow: 1735–1801. New York: Arno.Google Scholar
  98. Lesthaeghe, R.J. 1980. “On the Social Control of Human Reproduction.” Population and Development Review 6:527–48.Google Scholar
  99. —. 1983. “A Century of Demographic and Cultural Change in Western Europe: An Exploration of Underlying Dimensions.” Population and Development Review 9:411–35.Google Scholar
  100. Levy, H.S. 1966. Chinese Footbinding: The History of a Curious Erotic Custom. New York: Walton Rawls.Google Scholar
  101. Locke, J. [1690] 1988. Two Treatises of Government: A Critical Edition With an Introduction and Apparatus Criticus by Peter Laslett. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Locoh, T. and V. Hertrick. 1994. The Onset of Fertility Transition in Sub-Saharan Africa. Liège: Derouaux Ordina.Google Scholar
  103. Macfarlane, A. [1978] 1979. The Origins of English Individualism: The Family, Property, and Social Transition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  104. —. 1986. Marriage and Love in England: Modes of Reproduction, 1300–1840. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  105. Maine, H.S. [1861] 1888. Ancient Law. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  106. Malthus, T.R. [1803] 1986. “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” Vols. 2–3 in The Works of Thomas Robert Malthus, edited by E.A. Wrigley and D. Souden. London: Pickering.Google Scholar
  107. Mandelbaum, M. 1971. History, Man, and Reason: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Thought. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Mason, K.O. 1997. “Explaining Fertility Transitions.” Demography 34:443–54.Google Scholar
  109. McNicoll, G. 1994. “Institutional Analysis of Fertility.” Pp. 199–230 in Population, Economic Development, and the Environment, edited by K. Lindahl-Kiessling and H. Landberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Meek, R.L. 1976. Social Science and the Ignoble Savage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Meijer, M.J. 1971. Marriage Law and Policy in the Chinese People’s Republic. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Mill, J.S. [1859–1869] 1989. “On Liberty” and Other Writings, edited by S. Collini. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  113. Millar, J. [1771] 1979. The Origin of the Distinction of Ranks, edited by W.C. Lehmann. New York: Arno.Google Scholar
  114. Montesquieu, C.-L. [1721] 1973. Persian Letters, edited by C.J. Betts. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  115. —. [1748] 1997. The Spirit of the Laws. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  116. Morgan, L.H. [1877] 1985. Ancient Society. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  117. Morgan, P. 1996. “Characteristic Features of Modern American Fertility.” Population and Development Review 22:19–63.Google Scholar
  118. Mount, F. 1982. The Subversive Family: An Alternative History of Love and Marriage. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  119. Myrdal, G. 1968. Asian Drama: An Inquiry Into the Poverty of Nations. Vol. 2. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.Google Scholar
  120. “The New England Family.” 1882. The New Englander 145:137–159.Google Scholar
  121. Nisbet, R.A. [1969] 1975. Social Change and History. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  122. —. 1980. History of the Idea of Progress. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  123. Noonan, J.T., Jr. 1973. “Power to Choose.” Viotor: Medieval and Renaissance Studies 4:419–34.Google Scholar
  124. Notestein, F.W. 1945. “Population: The Long View.” Pp. 37–57 in Food for the World, edited by T.W. Schultz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  125. —. 1950. “The Reduction of Human Fertility as an Aid to Programs of Economic Development in Densely Settled Agrarian Regions.” Modernization Programs in Relation to Human Resources and Population Problems. New York: Milbank Memorial Fund.Google Scholar
  126. —. [1964] 1983. “Population Growth and Economic Development.” Population and Development Review 9:345–60.Google Scholar
  127. Offen, K. 2000. European Feminism, 1700–1950. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  128. O’Hara, D. 2000. Courtship and Constraint: Rethinking the Making of Marriage in Tudor England. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  129. O’Malley, L.S.S., ed. 1941. Modern India and the West: A Study of the Interaction of Their Civilizations. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  130. Ozment, S.E. 1983. When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  131. Pagden, A. 1982. The Fall of Natural Man: The American Indian and the Origins of Comparative Ethnology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  132. Phillips, R. 1988. Putting Asunder: A History of Divorce in Western Society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  133. Pigg, S.L. 1992. “Inventing Social Categories Through Place: Social Representations and Development in Nepal.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 34:491–513.Google Scholar
  134. Piotrow, P.T. 1973. World Population Crisis: The United States Response. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  135. Pollock, L.A. [1983] 1985. Forgotten Children: Parent-Child Relations From 1500 to 1900. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  136. Pritchett, L.H. 1994. “Desired Fertility and the Impact of Population Policies.” Population and Development Review 20:1–55.Google Scholar
  137. Rendall, J. 1985. The Origins of Modern Feminism: Women in Britain, France and the United States 1780–1860. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  138. Robertson, W. 1783. The History of America. Vol. 2. London: Strahan.Google Scholar
  139. Rogers, E.M. 1973. Communication Strategies for Family Planning. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  140. Roof, W.C. and W. McKinney. 1987. American Mainline Religion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  141. Ross, E.A. 1907. “Western Civilization and the Birth-Rate.” American Journal of Sociology 12:607–32.Google Scholar
  142. —. 1927. Standing Room Only. New York: Century.Google Scholar
  143. Rothman, E.K. 1984. Hands and Hearts: A History of Courtship in America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  144. Rousseau, J.-J. [1755] 1984. A Discourse on Inequality, edited by M. Cranston. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  145. Ruggles, S. 1987. Prolonged Connections: The Rise of the Extended Family in Nineteenth-Century England and America. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  146. —. 1994. “The Transformation of American Family Structure.” American Historical Review 99(1):103–28.Google Scholar
  147. Sanderson, S.K. 1990. Social Evolutionism: A Critical History. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  148. Schneider, C.E. 1985. “Moral Discourse and the Transformation of American Family Law.” Michigan Law Review 83:1803–79.Google Scholar
  149. Schochet, G.J. 1975. Patriarchalism in Political Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  150. Shahar, S. 1983. The Fourth Estate: A History of Women in the Middle Ages. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  151. Sheehan, M.M. 1978. “Choice of Marriage Partner in the Middle Ages: Development and Mode of Application and a Theory of Marriage.” Pp. 1–33 in Studies in Medieval Renaissance History, edited by S.A.S. Evans and R.W. Unger. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  152. Singh, Y. 1976. “Legal System, Legitimization and Social Change.” Pp. 381–97 in Aspects of Changing India: Studies in Honour of Prof. G.S. Ghurye, edited by S.D. Pillai. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.Google Scholar
  153. Smith, A. [1762–1763] 1978. Lectures on Jurisprudence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  154. Spengler, J.J. [1932] 1991. “The Birth Rate-Potential Dynamite.” Population and Development Review 17:157–69.Google Scholar
  155. Stocking, G.W., Jr. 1987. Victorian Anthropology. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  156. Sumner, W.G. and A.G. Keller. 1927. The Science of Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  157. Szreter, S. 1993. “The Idea of Demographic Transition and the Study of Fertility Change.” Population and Development Review 19:659–702.Google Scholar
  158. Tarcov, N. 1984. Locke’s Education for Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  159. Thompson, W.S. 1929. “Population.” American Journal of Sociology 34:959–75.Google Scholar
  160. —. 1930a. Population Problems. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  161. —. 1930b. Danger Spots in World Population. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  162. Thornton, A. 1989. “Changing Attitudes Toward Family Issues in the United States.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 51:873–93.Google Scholar
  163. —. 1994. “Comparative and Historical Perspectives on Marriage, Divorce, and Family Life.” Utah Law Review 1994:587–604.Google Scholar
  164. Thornton, A. 2001. “The Developmental Paradigm, Reading History Sideways, and Family Change.” Working paper, Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  165. Thornton, A. and D. Freedman. 1983. “The Changing American Family.” Population Bulletin 38(4):85–90.Google Scholar
  166. Thornton, A. and H.S. Lin. 1994. Social Change and the Family in Taiwan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  167. Thornton, A. and L. Young-DeMarco. Forthcoming. “Four Decades of Trends in Attitudes Toward Family Issues in the United States: The 1960s Through the 1990s.” Journal of Marriage and the Family.Google Scholar
  168. Tomaselli, S. 1985. “The Enlightenment Debate on Women.” History Workshop Journal 20:101–24.Google Scholar
  169. Traer, J.F. 1980. Marriage and the Family in Eighteenth-Century France. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  170. Tylor, E.B. 1871. Primitive Culture. Vol. 1. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  171. Ulrich, L.T. 1982. Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England 1650–1750. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  172. UNESCO. 1999. Statistical Yearbook. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  173. Ungern-Sternberg, R. von. 1931. The Causes of the Decline in Birth-Rate Within the European Sphere of Civilization. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Eugenics Research Association.Google Scholar
  174. United Nations. 1953. The Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends. New York: United Nations, Department of Social Affairs, Population Division.Google Scholar
  175. —. 1998. National Population Policies. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.Google Scholar
  176. van de Kaa, D.J. 1987. “Europe’s Second Demographic Transition.” Population Bulletin 42(1):1–59.Google Scholar
  177. —. 1996. “Anchored Narratives: The Story and Findings of Half a Century of Research Into the Determinants of Fertility.” Population Studies 50:389–432.Google Scholar
  178. Watkins, S.C. 2000. “Local and Foreign Models of Reproduction in Nyanza Province, Kenya.” Population and Development Review 26:725–59.Google Scholar
  179. Watkins, S.C. and D. Hodgson. 1998. “From Mercantilists to Neo-Malthusians: The International Population Movement and the Transformation of Population Ideology in Kenya.” Paper presented at the Workshop on Social Processes Underlying Fertility Change in Developing Countries, Committee on Population, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, January 29–30.Google Scholar
  180. Westermarck, E.A. [1891] 1894. The History of Human Marriage. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  181. —. [1927] 1929. Memories of My Life. New York: Macaulay.Google Scholar
  182. Westoff, C.F. and A. Bankole. 1999. Mass Media and Reproductive Behavior in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Calverton, MD: Macro International.Google Scholar
  183. Westoff, C.F. and G. Rodriguez. 1995. “The Mass Media and Family Planning in Kenya.” International Family Planning Perspectives 21(1):26–31, 36.Google Scholar
  184. “Why Is Single Life Becoming More General?” 1868. The Nation 6:190–91.Google Scholar
  185. Whyte, M.K. 1990. “Changes in Mate Choice in Chengdu.” Pp. 181–213 in Chinese Society on the Eve of Tiananmen, edited by D. Davis and E. Vogel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  186. Whyte, M.K. No date. “China’s Revolutions and Parent-Child Relations.” Department of Sociology, Harvard University. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  187. Wolf, A.P. 1986. “The Preeminent Role of Government Intervention in China’s Family Revolution.” Population and Development Review 12:101–16.Google Scholar
  188. Wollstonecraft, M. [1792] 1975. A Vindication of the Rights of Women, edited by C.H. Poston. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  189. Wood, G.S. 1969. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1789. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  190. Wright, C.D. 1899. Outline of Practical Sociology. New York: Longmans.Google Scholar
  191. Wrightson, K. 1982. English Society, 1580–1680. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  192. Zheng, W. 1999. Women in the Chinese Enlightenment: Oral and Textual Histories. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arland Thornton
    • 1
  1. 1.Survey Research Center, Population Studies Center, and Department of SociologyThe University of MichiganAnn Arbor

Personalised recommendations