Missing Girls and Missing Boys: Differential Effects of Marital
Residence, Co-resident Kin, and Household Wealth in Two Japanese
Villages, 1716-1870

Hao DONGab* and Satomi KUROSUb(This version: March 2016. Word count: 10418)

Author’s affiliation: a. Hong Kong University of Science and Technology; b. Reitaku University
Acknowledgement: We thank Cameron Campbell, James Z. Lee and Matthew Noellert for theirhelpful comments. This research is supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Project JSPS KAKENHI (09NP1001) and MEXT-Supported Program for the Strategic
Research Foundation at Private Universities (S1591001L).
* Corresponding author. Division of Social Science, Hong Kong University of Science andTechnology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Email: sohdong@connect.ust.hk

Missing Girls and Missing Boys: Differential Effects of Marital
Residence, Co-resident Kin, and Household Wealth in Two Japanese
Villages, 1716-1870

Abstract: Postnatal reproduction control practices are common in both Eastern and Western
historical populations, but in the East they are notably sex-selective. However, other thanaggregate evidence of skewed sex ratios, empirical studies on determinants of such sex
preference and sex-selective reproduction control practices, especially in relation to marital
residence, remains limited. Taking advantage of individual-level panel data from the local
population registers, ninbetsu-aratame-cho, in two northeastern Japanese farming villages
Shimomoriya and Niita between 1716 and 1870, we examine sex-selective reproduction control
by analyzing the unusual probability of having a newly recorded birth of a specific sex by parity.
We focus on the contrast between two marital residence types: virilocal (married-in daughter-inlaw living with inheriting sons and his family) vs. uxorilocal (adopted sons-in-law living with
inheriting daughters with her family). And we study if co-resident kin and household wealth playdifferent roles between virilocal and uxorilocal marriages in shaping their sex-selective
reproductive behavior. We find that there are many more registered girls than boys at first birth,
but the sex ratio skews into the opposite direction at second and later births. Our multivariate
discrete-time event-history analysis further reveals that uxorilocal marriages favor girls more thanvirilocal marriages, even more so at first birth when uxorilocal families are land rich or at later
births when their surviving children are only males. In other words, unlike other East Asian
historical populations where female infanticide was overwhelming, there were not only “missing
girls” but also a non-trivial number of “missing boys” in our study Japanese populations,especially among uxorilocal marriages. Our findings highlight the complex agency in humanreproduction within the dynamics of power and property of the family.
Keyword: Sex-selective reproduction control, uxorilocal and virilocal marital residence, coresident kin influence, wealth, Tokugawa Japan

1

Introduction

Postnatal reproduction control practices are common in both Eastern and Western historical
populations, but in the East they are notably sex-selective (Tsuya et al. 2010, Lynch 2011, Hrdy
1987, Lee and Wang 1999). While, in principle, chances to have a human birth of either sexes
should be about equal (Fisher 1930), in reality, the observed or recorded sex ratio of humaninfants and children is often highly skewed, particularly among historical and developing Asian
populations (Zeng et al. 1993, Tsuya et al. 2010, Sen 1992, Das Gupta 1987 Coale and Banister
1994, Park and Cho 1995). In historical human populations, postnatal reproduction control
practices are notably through infanticide and neglect in the East and to a lesser extent
abandonment in the West (Hrdy 1987, Lee and Wang 1999, Tsuya et al. 2010, Lynch 2011). And
sex preference and sex-selective control practices in reproduction could be complex according to
the survival, parity, sex combination, and even sequencing of previous children (Drixler 2013,
Lee and Wang 2010, Lee, Wang and Campbell 1994, Choe et al. 1995, Smith 1997, Tsuya et al.
2010, Sandström and Vikström 2015, Hank 2007, Anderson et al 2006, Drixler and Kok 2016,
Reher et al. 2015, Manfredini, Breschi and Fornasin 2013)
Human reproduction, in other words, is not just a passive product shaped by external
ecological environment, but often an active response to family and social context. In addition to
a common recognition of the influence of family socioeconomic characteristics on reproduction(Voland 1984, Low 1990, Chen, Campbell and Lee 2010, Tsuya et al. 2010), increasing evidence
suggests important effects of co-resident kin (Sear and Coall 2011). Most systematicallydemonstrated by the Eurasia Population and Family History Project that uses comparable
individual-level longitudinal data and methods to compare between European and East Asian
populations in 1700-1900, co-resident kin play critical roles in both economic and reproductive
decision-making (Tsuya et al 2010: 92). Moreover, among northeastern Asian study populations,social power, such as an individual’s position within the family and household hierarchies, largely
defined the range of individual choices regarding reproduction. In contrast, in northwestern
Europe, the socioeconomic status of an individual or a household was the main resource thatenabled or compelled an individual to take actions regarding reproduction. Namely, on top of
specific differences between individual and families, local norms and institutions regarding
reproduction, kinship, inheritance, and family organization and succession also shape such family
influence on reproduction.

In this study, we focus on the contrast between types of marital residence because
marital residence is indeed one of the most crucial shaping factors to family influence. Being
virilocal – wife living with husband’s kin, uxorilocal – husband living with wife’s kin, or neolocal– the couple living independently, makes a difference in their conjugal power hierarchy, access toresources, as well as their expected roles interacting with kin members. This is particularly thecase for societies with complex family systems where neolocal residence is limited. In addition,
increasing evidence suggests that paternal and maternal co-resident kin may have different
influence on reproduction (Sear and Coall 2011).
However, little is known about the relationship between sex-selective reproduction
control and marital residence, let alone the shaping roles played by co-resident kin and wealth. In
Western populations where variation in marital residence is relatively large, sex preference andsex-selective control are atypical. In Asian populations where son preference and sex-selective
behavior are common, marital residence is however predominantly virilocal. As a result, to ourknowledge, under historical East Asian context only Wolf and Huang (1980) and Drixler (2013)
discuss marital residence types and their reproduction differentials with quantitative data. Froman anthropological perspective and based on tabulations of early twentieth century population
registration data from Taiwan, Wolf and Huang find that children’s marriages (called sim-pua, or
minor marriage) had much lower fertility level than uxorilocal and virilocal (called major
marriage) marriages because “the intimate childhood association aroused a marked, sustained
aversion, resulted in low fertility” (1980: 176). But they neither emphasize the differential
reproduction outcomes of virilocal and uxorilocal marriages, nor studies specific sex-selective
reproduction control practices. By aggregating large-scale cross-sectional data from Tokugawa
Japanese population registers, of which some share similar sources with our individual-level data,
Drixler (2013) finds Japanese uxorilocal marriages prefer a daughter as the first child more thanvirilocal marriages – a pattern also confirmed and carefully examined by our study withlongitudinal data. However, his finding remains preliminary in the sense that it is drawn from
simple tabulations without further detailed examination (Drixler 2013: 95).
Tokugawa Japan provides a unique opportunity to study sex-selective reproduction
control between virilocal and uxorilocal marriages. Like other historical East Asian populations,in Tokugawa Japan, virilocal marriages were dominant and postnatal sex-selective reproduction
control was widely practiced (Drixler 2013, Saito 1992). But unlike its neighboring populations,
Tokugawa Japanese population also consisted of a non-trivial proportion of uxorilocal marriages.
Moreover, individual-level panel data consisting of annual observations of more than 6000

individuals living in two northeastern Japanese villages between 1716-1870 further facilitate ourmultivariate event-history approach to examine the influence of and interaction between selectcharacteristics of individuals, couples, co-resident kin and households. Our study therefore
provides new empirical evidence of not only differential sex preference and sex-selective
reproduction control between virilocal and uxorilocal marriages, but also the associations withco-resident kin and household wealth. By demonstrating a profound historical experience of sexselective reproduction control, it helps us to better understand the importance of various aspectsof family context in shaping human agency in reproduction.

2

Background

2.1

Marriage and stem-family norms in Tokugawa Japan
Early modern Japan is known for its regional diversity in population and family patterns.

The northeastern region demonstrates a strong adherence to the stem family principle (i.e. only
one couple in each generation) (Oto 1996; Cornell 1987). Peasants were active agent to control
household size and sex balance of members via the channel of marriage, divorce, remarriage,
adoption, service, and even infanticide. Marriage was pivotal in recomposing the family. Marriage
was also vital for individual survival. Thus, marriage was universal and extremely early (Kurosu,
Tsuya, and Hamano 1999). In the stem family households, inheriting children brought in the
new spouse (bride or groom) and the non-inheriting sibling left home (Smith 1977; Cornell 1987;
Kurosu 1996). This rule has kept “the family farm and other property in tact from one
generation to the next, assuring as nearly as possible that the family would continue in thevillage” (Smith 1977: 134-135). Moreover, this rule has brought about different life course
options and power structure to the families. In both uxorilocal and virilocal marriages, it wasinheriting daughters in the former and sons in the latter who were more autonomous and hadeasier access to resources in their familiar environment at their natal households (e.g. Oto 2001:
367). Grooms and brides were to obey the practices and rules of the new marital residence. If
couples got divorced, which occurred quite frequent in early modern Japan, it was grooms andbrides who had to leave the marital household. Inheriting daughters and sons were to stay andoften remarry in the same households.
While uxorilocal marriage is observed in various parts of Japan, it seems to be popular
especially in region known to have practiced succession by the eldest daughter (ane-katoku in folk
terms) (Maeda 1976). In terms of marriage, this takes a form of uxorilocal marriage where uponmarriage, husband comes into live with wife’s family.1 Alternatively, this is considered a form ofadoption, called “adoption of sons-in-law” (muko-yoshi). This custom is said to have beencommon in northeastern Japan, where per-capita landholding is large (particularly of ricepaddies) and that the family needed to “recruit” man-power (or sons-in-law) for labor intensive
field work (Oto 1996: 265). It was also the area of relatively high mortality and harshenvironments where early transfer of generation was necessary (Hayami 2009: 585-586).
Frequent practices of uxorilocal marriage, or the “son-in-law adoption,” together with the“daughter first” preference might imply a peasant strategy for swift and successful transition ofheadship in the villages with high mortality risk (Kurosu 2013). The idea that couples deliberately
had daughters in order to find capable sons-in-law is often discussed as strategy for the familiesof merchants and medical doctors (Otake et al. 1988). It might find even a contemporary
equivalent. Mehrotra et al. (2010) found that the practice of adopting adults, even if one hadbiological children, made family firms unusually competitive in post-war Japan. For the interestof this study, it is important to note that inheriting women married uxorilocally in general areconsidered to be able to keep higher social status and power even after marriage (Mori 1999;
Maeda 1992: 71-74).2
2.2

Sex preference and infanticide in Tokugawa Japan
Infanticide has been a central topic in the discussion for the low fertility and population

stagnation of 18th century. Findings are mixed as to whether poor peasants practiced infanticide
due to economic hardship as the conventional pre-war historians viewed, or peasants, regardlessof the social status, deliberately limited family size as a strategy to improve household income,just like “post-partum birth control” or “family planning” (e.g. Hanley 1972; Smith 1972). Whilemost historical demographers agree that it was a practice embedded deeply in cultural andhistorical contexts, the regional variation, its persistence and/or spread, as well as its importanceto population patterns and other demographic behaviors are yet to be fully examined. Also,

1 While ane-katoku is the equivalent of primogeniture (succession by the eldest child), successions by the eldest

daughters are emphasized here as those by the eldest sons are considered to be the major and common pattern ofsuccession in early modern Tokugawa (Yamamoto 2006). Demographically, Yamamoto (2006) claims fiveconditions have to be met for the ane-katoku inheritance: the eldest child is female, there exists a second or higher
order son, the eldest daughter survives to adulthood, the eldest daughter marries uxorilocally, and her husband
becomes head of the household and all other male siblings leave the household. Yamamoto (2006) also discusses thereason for such inheritance system.
2 It is, however, not possible to examine the power structure between husbands and wives from our data. Once
married, sons-in-law became heads of the households. Therefore, on NAC records, the households appear
patriarchal. However, it is also important to note that it was sons-in-law who had to leave the household once they
were divorced and that happened quite frequent in these villages (Kurosu 2011).

some other studies claim that what appears as infanticide could be attributed to miscarriages
induced by overwork and sexually transmitted disease (Tomobe 2001); and that other factors
related to exposure (e.g. age at marriage, sexual networking, spousal separation, breastfeeding)need to be investigated, placing infanticide as only one of “multiple components ofdemography” (Cornell 1996). Recent studies try to place infanticide in the wider context of thehistory of parenting, childhood, and reproduction, as well as cosmology and cultural beliefs (Ota
2007; Sawayama 2005; Kawaguchi 2002).
Drixler’s work (2013) based on a large cross-sectional data collected from Eastern Japan
brings infanticide back to the center of explanation for the population changes in early modern
Japan. Based on the own-children method of backward projection of fertility, Drixler places the
proportion of infanticides and abortions to be closer to 40 percent during the decades when they
were at their most frequent (2013: 18). While the estimate stands for question, his work
empirically supports the wider use of child control among peasants and, more importantly,
showed that in regard to sex preference of children, unlike other systems of infanticide, EasternJapan’s logic of infant selection did not consistently reject baby girls (Drixler 2013: 91). This is inline with the studies that the desire for sex-balanced offspring have prevailed in Tokugawa
society to assure family line and for gendered labor (Ota 1991). Number of surviving siblings andtheir sequence influenced infanticide choices (Drixler 2013: 92). Tsuya and Kurosu (2010) argue
that the preference for a daughter (especially having a daughter first) prevailed particularly ineastern part of Japan as a daughter could help the mother by tending to her younger sibling(s) asa baby sitter and a caregiver (Hanley and Yamamura 1975; Skinner 1987). In addition, the girlboy(s) sequence served the interests of the father (and the mother), who had married at a youngage, by reducing the potential for intergenerational power conflicts between the father ashousehold head and his eldest son as heir presumptive (Skinner 1988). For the purpose of thisstudy, it is important to note another finding of Drixler, although not discussed too much inlength, a relationship between marriage and sex selection and that the male-to-female sex ratiosof children among uxorilocal marriages were much lower than those of virilocal marriages (2013:92). In other words, couples married uxorilocally appeared to have preferred daughters than
sons.
2.3

Settings of our study population
Our study population is from two Northeastern Japanese villages, Shimomoriya and Niita,

located in the current Fukushima prefecture. The villages were almost exclusively agricultural.
Shimomoriya, situated at the foot of a mountain range, was susceptible to cold summers andpoor harvests resulting from chilly gusts off the mountains (Narimatsu 1985: 1-3). Niita, on flat
land, had less severe winter weather (Nariamtsu 1992: 4-6), but was vulnerable to frequent floods
lying on the banks of the Gohyaku River. In other words, the circumstances of the two villages
were often at the mercy of fluctuations in agricultural output.
Despite the environmental hardships,3 or partly due to such adverse circumstances,peasants appear to have been active agents who adjusted household size and composition for the
integrity and survival of the households and to have achieved the overriding aim of family
continuity (Kurosu 2013). Studies that use the same village records as this study reveals strategies
taken by the farm households for their survival upon economic and demographic constraints--by using the channels of marriage (Tsuya and Kurosu 2014), adoption (Kurosu 2013), divorce(Kurosu 2011), remarriage (Kurosu 2007), and by controlling the timing of siblings’ departure in
relation to heirs’ marriage and first birth (Kurosu 1996). Being the head or immediate membersof the stem family reduced the mortality risk of individuals (Tsuya and Kurosu 2004). Thus
individual life course was tightly bound to and stratified by the stem family rules (Saito 2000).
Tsuya and Kurosu (2004, 2010) suggest that the mortality level was at relatively higher end while
the fertility level was at the extremely low end of the distribution among the observed villages ofthe same period – only one-third of the natural fertility standard. Strong reproductive control
was prevalent, not only through parity-specific efforts (stopping), but also from behaviors not
related to family limitation such as birth spacing and spousal separation due to frequent labor
migration. While women married very young, they did not start to have children until three tofour years after marriage, had the next child five years after the previous one, and stopped having
children by age 33 to 34. The mean number of births recorded was one of the lowest everobserved in eighteenth and nineteenth century rural Japan. There was clear indication ofextensive and sophisticated use of sex-selective and parity-specific infanticide, aiming to achievea relatively small and sex-balanced offspring set (a daughter was preferred first). This confirmed
the normative understanding of the general sex preference and infanticide practices in historicalJapanese populations. Our study develops these previous work further to examine therelationship between marital residence and reproduction.
3 The population trends of the two villages reflect the economic hardship of peasant life. At the beginning of theregisters the population of Niita was 538 and Shimomoriya 419 and were stable for the first 35 years. However, bothvillages suffered population decline being disturbed by various losing a total of 30–40 percent from the initialperiod. The populations started a gradual upturn only after 1840, with the general improvement of climate resulting
in less frequent famines, and the development of agricultural techniques that improved the living standards in thetwo villages. The number of households also declined from the mid-1770s and became stable in the 1840s at 3040% below the number of households in the early eighteenth century. The average size of households was stablearound four members, which was small for a preindustrial population, and increased only after the Tempo famine in
the 1830s to around 6 persons in both villages.

3 Methodology
3.1

Data
This study takes advantage of data from the local population registers called ninbetsu-

aratame-cho in Shimomoriya and Niita (NAC-SN), two farming villages in the present Fukushima
prefecture in northeastern Japan. These NAC records extend over a period of about 150 years,
1716–1869 for Shimomoriya and 1720–1870 for Niita, with only a small number of intermittent
years missing. Registers annotated all major demographic events, including birth, death, marriage,and migration for all individuals residing in the villages. In addition, exits from and entry to thehouseholds including movements within and outside the village were recorded in detail, allowing
this study to examine two types of post-marital residence as well as other characteristics ofindividuals. Exits for unknown reasons were extremely rare, accounting for less than 1 percent
of all recorded exits in the NAC registers in both villages. Thus, their quality and length makethese NAC registers some of the best documentation for historical population in Japan, andpossibly in East Asia (Tsuya and Kurosu 2004, Dong et al. 2015).
To compare marital reproduction between virilocal and uxorilocal families, we define ourpopulation at risk as married females aged 10-49. In addition, unlike many other East Asian
populations, divorce and remarriage were relatively common in Japanese populations in the past.
We therefore further restrict our analysis to those who start the marriage under observation andhave neither own children ever recorded nor co-residing children resulted from husband’s
previous marriage or adoption. By so doing, although we have no information for women’smarriage and reproduction history outside the village, if any, we assure that all observed births
and their parities are exactly measured for each marriage under study. Besides, only thoseindividual observations with a linked observation right in the next year are eligible for analysis,
which guarantees exact timing of each birth. The average between-year linking rate of individual
multiple observations from different registers in the NAC-SN data is around 95%, the highest
among comparable historical population panel data in East Asia (Dong, et. al 2015). As a result,
our analysis includes 13888 annual observations of 1045 married females, of whom 978 have afirst birth and 700 have second and later births.
3.2

Methods and measures
The panel structure of our data facilitates a discrete-time event-history approach, whichis also widely used by previous studies using these Japanese data or similar East Asian data (e.g.

Tsuya et al. 2010). We first, to provide a general picture, apply logit models and examine theeffects of selected factors on the probability of having a recorded birth in the next year. We thenapply multinomial logit models and distinguish differential probability of three mutually exclusivecompeting outcomes: male, female, or no birth. This is a methodological advance from previous
studies. Although also differentiating the differential probability of having male and female
births, the East Asian part of analysis in Tsuya et al. (2010) only uses simple logit models with
two separate binary outcome variables as whether having a recorded male birth or not, and arecorded female birth or not. Such estimation strategy mixes the two reference outcomes –having a recorded birth of the opposite sex and having no birth, and thus may produce biased
estimated effects of explanatory variables. In addition, considering the possible correlation
between multiple observations of the same individual, we compare two correction methods:
multinomial logit models with clustered standard errors at individual level, and two-level
random-intercept multinomial logit models having individual observations as the first level andindividuals as the second level. Especially, by assigning a random intercept for each indexed
individual, the latter one takes account of time-invariant unobserved characteristics of thewoman or the couple, for example, fecundity, adverse early experience, household environment,
etc., which may influence the estimation on reproductive outcomes (e.g. Campbell and Lee2010).
Moreover, we separately study first births and later births. As discussed before, sexpreference of Japanese families differs by parity and the sex composition of surviving children. It
is therefore important for our multivariate analysis to differentiate the pattern by parity, and toinclude measures for previous births or surviving children when studying later births. Below weintroduce all variables included in our multivariate analysis, and we report their summary
statistics in appendix table 1.
We have two outcome variables, a general dummy variable indicating whether the
woman have a new recorded birth in the next year, and a specific categorical variable suggestingwhether the woman have non birth, male birth, or female birth in the next year. We find no
woman having both males and female births recorded in the same year so that three categories
are mutually exclusive. While we have no direct evidence to verify this, it may be partly due toour limited data size.
Our key explanatory variable is a dummy variable for marital residence patterns: virilocal
or uxorilocal. For other individual and couple characteristics, we include variables for wife’s age
and its squared term, wife’s age at current marriage, whether current marriage is a re-marriage,and, following previous research (Tsuya et. al 2010), age difference between the wife andhusband – whether the husband is 6 and more years, 0-5 years, or younger than wife. While they
are not available for the study of first births, we include three measures regarding characteristics
of previous births for the study of second and later births: Years from last birth, cumulative
number of recorded births up to the current year, and whether the surviving children are none,
only males, only females, or both males and females.
For co-residence of kin as well as other household- and community-level characteristics,
we first have a categorical variable measuring the presence or absence of parents or parents-inlaw in the household: No parents, only mother, only father, both parents. We also have a set ofdummy variables indicating the sibling or sibling-in-law co-residence of older brothers, older
sisters, younger brothers and younger sisters. To measure the size effect of household, we have
not only the number of kin but also the number of non-kin in the household. These twovariables allow us to differentiate the overall effects of the possible competition or helping
between co-resident kin, and the service or dependence from non-kin that are predominantly
servants and labors. Moreover, we have detailed annual landholding information for eachhousehold, which is measured by the account of household land taxation, koku, which isespecially rare and valuable for historical population studies. We also have annual rice price forthe village and include in the model with a one-year lag and in logarithm. Finally, to take accountof unobserved characteristics between villages and periods, following exiting studies (Tsuya et a.
2010), although the coefficients are not reported in our result tables, we also include fixed effects
for the two village and for four periods: 1716-1759, 1760-1779, 1780-1839, and 1840-1870.

4

Results

4.1

Descriptive patterns
In our study population, sex ratio of recorded births is skewed and, more importantly,

changes dramatically between first and later births. As suggested in table 1, while wives invirilocal marriages appear to be slightly older to start marriage and reproduction, they seem tohave relatively more male births than their counterpart in uxorilocal marriages. However, among
first births, there are many more females than males recorded overall, despite such differences
between the two types of marriage: 94.0 and 68.1 males per 100 females in virilocal anduxorilocal marriages, respectively. By contrast, among second births, there are many more males
than females among second births, 123.3 males and 116.4 males per 100 females for virilocal anduxorilocal marriages, respectively. Among third and later births, the sex ratio is around 109,
which remains slightly high but relatively normal.
Table 1 here
Such skewed patterns of sex ratio in reproduction by parity, in line with much existingunderstanding of the sex preference in historical Japan, is unlikely to be an artifact of household
registration. Our Japanese annual registers omit infants born after the current registration anddied before the one in the next year. However, based on our comparative evaluation of data,
records of children are overall balanced between sex, which suggests no evidence for systematicomission of one sex that is common in some other Chinese and Korean historical population
registration data (Dong, et. al 2015). Moreover, remaining documents of the basic law andordinance of Nihonmatsu domain where these two villages belonged also demonstrates thecompleteness and strictness in practicing registration (Goryounai ninbetu aratame no oboe, transcribedin Nihonmatsu-han Shi Kanko-kai 1992: 518–519). And previous studies based on these data
have yielded many plausible findings to understand mortality, marriage, and reproduction
behavior in comparison with other East Asian and European populations. In other words, while
the absolute levels of sex ratio by parity may subject to specific data, region and period, theobserved patterns are in line with Drixler (2013)’s finding based on concurrent Japanese
population data with a much broader geographic coverage, and therefore probably reflect thecommon pattern in Tokugawa Japan.
The life-course predicted probability of reproduction, plotted in figure 1, also confirms
the observed varying sex ratio at different time points. To predict such probability, we regress
the two outcome variables – whether having a birth, and whether having no birth, male birth, or
female birth in the next year – on dummy variables of the 5-year age groups and marital
residence types as well as their interaction terms, controlling for fixed effects of villages andperiods. We fit a logit model and a multinomial logit model for the two outcomes, respectively.
For both virilocal and uxorilocal families, we have dot lines for the predicted probability of
having a birth of either sex recorded in the next year, dash lines for it of having a male birth, andsolid lines for it of a female birth.
Overall, in line with table 1, the uxorilocal wives start earlier in child bearing that theirpredicted probability peaks at age 15-19, while the peak is at age 20-24 for virilocal wives.
However, such early start of uxorilocal wives aged 10-14 and 15-19 is not sex balanced: they are
more likely to have a female birth than a male birth. After age 20, their probability of having amale or female birth becomes similar. By contrast, among virilocal wives, at age 10-14 and 15-19,
the probabilities of having a male birth and having a female birth is similar. But between age 20
to 30, their probability of having a male birth exceeds that of a female birth. After 30, the sex
difference in probability becomes not apparent, and the levels are similar to those of uxorilocal
wives. To sum, if we believe that biologically the probability of either sex births should be largely
equal and independent from age and types of marital residence, and the data are reliable sourcesof family and population behavior, what we observed may reflect the deliberate sex-selective
postnatal birth control. Although little has been understood about the difference between
virilocal and uxorilocal marriages based on previous studies, the general pattern observed here
are as well stated from existing understanding of the birth control practices including infanticideand deliberate neglect. But, unlike other East Asian historical populations of which female
infanticide was predominant, there were not only “missing girls” but also “missing boys” in ourstudy Japanese populations.
4.2

Multivariate event-history analysis

4.2.1

First birth
In terms of the recorded first births, as suggested by our multivariate analysis reported intable 2, uxorilocal marriages are more likely to reproduce than virilocal marriages, especiallyfemale births. This pattern, although already revealed by our simple tabulation in table 1, remains
to be true after we take into account of selected confounding factors of the individual, couple,
co-resident kin, household, and community. Model 1 suggests that, overall, uxorilocal marriages
have higher probability to have a recorded first birth than virilocal marriages. The odds foruxorilocal marriages to have a first birth is 47 percent more than the odds for virilocal marriages.
However, if we further distinguish the sex of their first birth with the multinomial logit models 2
and 3, such difference between virilocal and uxorilocal marriages, is particularly apparent in theirchances of having a female birth. Due to different correction methods – applying clustered
standard errors or random intercepts to account for the correlation between individual multiple
observations, models 2 and 3 yield slightly different estimated results. But the pattern resembles
each other: Of having a male first birth, with a statistical significance beyond the 0.05 level,uxorilocal marriages have 40 or 60 percent higher relative risk than virilocal marriages; of having
a female first birth, statistically significant beyond the 0.01 level, the relative risk for uxorilocal
marriages is 52 or 71 percent more.

Such other characteristics of the couple as the wife’s age at marriage and her remarriage
status also matter. But they influence the chances of having a male birth. Model 1 suggests thatthe older the wife gets married, the more likely the couple reproduce. By model 2, we find thatsuch reproductive tendency of late starting wives is, however, not sex neutral: they are more
likely to have a recorded male birth, but indifferent with others in terms of giving a female birth.
But we should note that such difference is marginally statistically significant (p = 0.066). Indeed,
after we account for heterogeneity between wives or couples with model 3, it even disappears,
which suggests certain unobserved characteristics may confound the observed effect of latemarriage. Meanwhile, in both model 2 and 3, we find that, compared with other firstly married
wives, remarried wives are around 50 percent less likely to reproduce males as their first birth,but of similar chances to have a girl birth. In our analytic sample for multivariate analysis, there
are 66 first births born to those remarried wives. The sex ratio is even more skewed than theoverall pattern: 78.6 in virilocal marriages and 32.3 in uxorilocal marriages. Apparently, those
remarried wives– given our study restriction, being childless from previous marriage(s) – havedifferent, if not stronger, sex preference for the first birth. Besides, we find no evidence that the
couple age difference, a common measure for the conjugal power relationship (Skinner 1993),
makes a difference in the probability and sex of the recorded first birth. Our additional
examination, while not reported here, suggest there are no substantial interaction effect between
the wife’s remarriage status and two types of marital residence. In other words, such practices ofsex selection on the first birth may not differ substantially between remarried wives in virilocal
and uxorilocal marriages.
Table 2 here
We find no strong evidence for the effects of co-resident kin on the probability or sex
selection of the recorded first birth, except that living with only father or father-in-law lowers theprobability of having a male birth and living with at least one younger sister or sister-in-law inthe household hinders reproducing a female birth. As usually father or father-in-law is the headof the household and decides the household resource allocation, the negative correlation
between presence of father in the household and probability of having a male birth in the next
year may reflect the resource competition of ‘dependent’ household members between
generations. Given limited resources, in order to support the co-resident father’s living, thecouple may decide, or have to, postpone bearing and rearing a male heir. The similar negative
association between co-resident younger sisters and having a female first birth, however, implies
a substitution effect related to the girl preference at first birth. In other words, be she a sister ordaughter, it is probably a need to have a young girl in the household, who may later grow up andhelp take care of the elderly and other children. However, the number of kin in the household
doesn’t matter. And, although not reported here, we have also examined whether the effects ofco-resident parents and of co-resident parents-in-law differ by interacting the parental coresidence variable with the marital residence type variable, which suggests no different roles
played by living with the wife’s biological or in-law parents.
While such other household characteristics as number of non-kin and landholding, as
well as community short-term economic fluctuation measured by logged rice price in previous
year, have no overall influence on the probability and sex of the first birth, we find interesting
moderating role of household landholding on the effect of marital residence. Based on a modelof the same specification as model 2 in table 2 but with an additional interaction term between
marital residence and household landholding, we plot in figure 2, along the landholding, thecontrast of the predictive margins (i.e. marginal effect) of being uxorilocal versus virilocal
marriages on the probability of having no birth, a male birth and a female birth in the next year.
We find that, when the landholding increases, while uxorilocal marriages show no difference
from virilocal marraiges in terms of the predicted probability of having a male birth, they aresubstantially less likely to have no birth but more likely to have a female birth. In other words,
uxorilocal households especially favor a girl as the first birth when they are rich in land. This
demonstrates a very different family reproduction strategy in contrast with virilocal peasanthouseholds in the village, as well as in other East Asian societies.
Figure 2 here
4.2.2

Second and later birth
The reproduction pattern of second and later births, similar to table 1, is very different

from first births. Nevertheless, in table 3, our multivariate analysis allows us to further findimportant associations between the probability and sex of the new births and various
characteristics of the couple and their existing children, and their co-resident kin and household.
First of all, compared to first births, the difference between virilocal and uxorilocal marriages interms of the probability of having a girl as second or later births becomes much smaller andmarginally statistically significant. Moreover, neither the wife’s age at marriage nor her remarriage
status has a substantial effect on the reproduction of second and later births. Instead, thecouple’s age difference matters to the extent that husband being over 6 years older than his wife
may result in a decreased probability of having a new birth. And, although marginally statisticallysignificant, such effect seems to be no different on male and female births. By contrast, thecumulative number of previously recorded births only influences the chances of having a malenew birth. The more previously recorded births the wife has, the more likely she will haveanother male birth in the next year. But it makes no difference for having female births.
The probably most important factor to the reproduction of second and later births is sex
composition of surviving children. Compared with those currently having both male and female
surviving children – the ideal composition in Japanese culture, couples who have no or single sex
surviving children are much more likely to have another birth. Such desire for reproduction isespecially strong among those having no surviving children, but appears similar to future birthsof both sexes.
That being said, we find differences between virilocal and uxorilocal marriages in
response to specific sex composition of surviving children. By introducing an interaction term to
the model 2 in table 2, we plot in figure 3 the contrast of predictive margins of being uxorilocal
over virilocal marriages, according to different sex composition of surviving children, on theprobability of having no, a male, or a female as the second or later birth in the next year. Whenthe couple have either no or both male and female surviving children, there are no substantial
difference between the virilocal and uxorilocal. However, among those who only have malesurviving children, uxorilocal marriages are less likely to have no birth, similarly likely to have amale birth, and more likely to have a female birth than virilocal marriages. Moreover, when there
are only female surviving children, uxorilocal marriages have lower probability to have a malebirth than virilocal marriages. Overall, these interaction effects consistently suggest that,compared with virilocal marriages, uxorilocal marriages have a stronger preference of girls in
reproduction.
Figure 3 here
Co-resident kin, back to model estimations in table 3, also have stronger influence onlater births than the first birth. Living with either only mother (-in-law) or both parents (-in-law)is positively correlated with the probability of both having male and female births. This, in linewith the “grandmother hypothesis” (Hawkes 2004, Jamison et al. 2002), suggests a positive
helping effect. So are the effect of co-resident older brothers (-in-law) and younger sisters (-inlaw). But, extra support from these co-resident siblings improves the chances of having female
births but not male births, in a way suggesting that to have a girl at later births is relatively
subject to the household context and potential co-resident care givers. Besides, we find noevidence for an interaction effect between marital residence and parental co-residence,suggesting again no substantial difference between biological and in-law parents on the couple’s
reproduction.
The sensitivity of female births to household context is also apparent when we look at
the influence of the number of co-resident kin and non-kin. Model 1 suggests a general negative
correlation between the number of kin in the household and probability of births, which implies
the overall impact from the competition of household resources between co-resident kin.
However, according to model 2 and 3, such negative association is largely driven by its strong
impact on girl births yet weak influence, if any, on male births. In other words, for second andlater births, competition in the household matters more to the reproduction decision on female
births than male births. By contrast, the number of non-kin in the household that measures not
only the household wealth but also the support from those non-competing servants, has ahelping effect on having additional births, similar to both sexes.
We find no overall or interaction effect of household landholding on the chances and sexof the second or later births. Neither is the logged rice price in previous year.

5

Conclusion
Taking advantage of individual-level panel data from two Japanese villages for as long asover 150 years, this study provides new empirical evidence that virilocal and uxorilocal marriages
respond to the family context actively, and have different preference and selection practices inon the sex of children. Uxorilocal marriages, where husband living with the inheriting daughterand her family, demonstrate stronger girl preference than virilocal marriages, where wife moving
in to live with the inheriting husband and his family. Despite the overall low ratio of boys overgirls among first births, compared with virilocal marriages, uxorilocal marriages are more likely to
reproduce and register a girl, especially with the increase of household wealth. Even among
second and later births of which the overall sex ratio favoring boys over girls, uxorilocal
marriages have lower probability to reproduce a boy when surviving children are girls only, buthigher probability to reproduce a girl when surviving children are boys only. In other words, thesex-selective practices in reproduction of uxorilocal marriages demonstrate much matrilineality.
Limited by small data size, this study does not directly examine if the observed strong
daughter preference lead to intergenerational transmission of uxorilocal marriages. The tendency
is however likely to exist since otherwise we may expect to find that uxorilocal marriages prefersons over daughters to change their trajectory in the next generation. As the construction ofsimilar data transcribed from Japanese historical population registers as well as other East Asiansources is in process (Dong et al 2015), we are soon able to provide further evidence regarding
the implications of this differential sex preference to population growth and social dynamics inthe long run.
Different tendency in family organization in general and family succession in particular
may have played a central role in shaping such sex preference and reproductive behavior. The
daughter preference in Tokugawa Japan, especially among the uxorilocal marriages, appears
unique, but it may reflect a family succession strategy of Japanese stem families. Comparatively,
while both were practicing stem-family system, sex preference in Northwestern European
populations was not as apparent as Japanese population. In addition to the fact that sex-selective
reproduction control was atypical in the West, this may relate to one major difference between
European and Japanese stem family system that “son-in-law adoption” is common in Japan but
virtually non-existent in Europe (Saito 1998). Together with the characteristic of Japanese family
being more “conspicuously vertically structured”, the concept of descent line may carry moreweight in traditional Japan than in the European past (Saito 1998). That said, interestingly,
although to a much lesser extent, some recent comparative findings based on European
populations from late 19th century onward suggestively coincide with our finding about daughter
preference in stem-family populations. Between 1900 and 1950, in the Netherlands and Sweden
where the Western European stem-family system is typical, those parents having no surviving
female children substantially increases their birth intensities, suggesting an increasing preference
for girls (Reher et al. 2015). But such daughter preference does not appear in the Spanish
population (Reher et al. 2015), where family organization is relatively complex and familial ties
are strong (Reher 1998). Similarly, daughter preference at third and above births has also beenfound in late 20th century Danish, Norwegian and Swedish populations (Anderson, et al. 2006).
Overall, our study adds to the accumulating literature on sex preference and deliberatebirth control in pre-modern populations. It also highlights the complex human agency inreproduction, especially under the dynamics of power and property of the family. In line withmany previous studies on both Western and Eastern populations, we find strong evidence ofreproductive responses to household context and socioeconomic status. Existing comparative
evidence suggests that unlike the Malthusian East-West dichotomy, East Asian historical
populations had even lower marital fertility than their European counterparts. Differential
deliberate reproduction control, especially practices of infanticide in the East but not West, isbelieved to play an important role in shaping such differences between populations. Our
comparison between two types of Japanese families however calls for attention to recognizing
similarly important differences between sub-populations. Under the same local culture,
institutions, and environment, reproductive behavior may differ systematically according tomarital residence, and such difference may persist for long.

References
Andersson, Gunnar, Karsten Hank, Marit Rønsen, and Andres Vikat. 2006. “Gendering Family
Composition: Sex Preferences for Children and Childbearing Behavior in the Nordic
Countries”. Demography 43 (2): 255–67.
Campbell, Cameron and James Lee. 2010. “Fertility control in historical China revisited: New
methods for an old debate.” History of the Family. 15:370-385.
Chen, Shuang, James Lee, and Cameron Campbell. 2010. “Wealth stratification and reproductionin Northeast China, 1866–1907.” The History of the Family 15(4): 386-412.
Choe, Minja Kim, Hongsheng Hao, Feng Wang. 1995. “Effects of gender, birth order, and othercorrelates on childhood mortality in China.” Social Biology, 42 (1-2): 50-64.
Coale, Ansley J., and Judith Banister. 1996. “Five Decades of Missing Females in
China”. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society140 (4): 421–450.
Cornell, Laurel L. 1996 “Infanticide in Early Modern Japan? Demography, Culture andPopulation Growth.” Journal of Asian Studies 55(1): 22-50.
Cornell, Laurel L. 1987 "Hajnal and the Household in Asia: A Comparativist History of the
Family in Preindustrial Japan, 1600-1870." Journal of Family History 12(1-3): 143-62.
Das Gupta, Monica. 1987. “Selective discrimination against female children in rural Punjab,
India.” Population and Development Review 13(1): 77-100.
Dong, Hao, Cameron Campbell, Satomi Kurosu, Wenshan Yang, James Z. Lee. 2015. “NewSources for Comparative Social Sciences: Historical Population Panel Data from East Asia.”
Demography. 52(3): 1061-1088.
Drixler, Fabian. 2013. Infanticide and Population Growth in Eastern Japan, 1660-1950. Oakland:
University of California Press.
Fabian F. Drixler and Jan Kok. 2016 (forthcoming) “A lost family-planning regime ineighteenth-century Ceylon.” Population Studies 70 (1).
Fisher, Ronald A. 1930. The genetical Theory of Natural Selection: A Complete Variorum Edition. Oxford
University Press.

Hanley, Susan 1991 “Tokugawa Society: Material Culture, Standard of Living, and Life- styles,”in The Cambridge History of Japan, vol.4 edited by John Whitney Hall. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 698-700.
Hanley, Susan 1972 “Toward an Analysis of Demographic and Economic Change in Tokugawa
Japan: A Village Study.” The Journal of Asian Studies 31 (3): 515-537.
Hanley, Susan B., and Kozo Yamamura 1975 "Ichi Hime, ni Taro: Educational Aspirations and the
Decline in Fertility in Postwar Japan." Journal of Japanese Studies 2: 83-125.
Hawkes, Kristen. 2004. “Human longevity: the grandmother effect.” Nature 428 (6979): 128-129.
Hayami, Akira 2009 Rekishi Jinkogaku Kenkyu: Atarashii Kinse Nihonzou (Historical Demography of
Early Modern Japan). Tokyo: Fujiwara Shoten.
Hank, Karsten. 2007. "Parental gender preferences and reproductive behaviour: A review of therecent literature." Journal of Biosocial Science 39(05): 759-767.
Hrdy, Sarah. 1987. Sex-Biased Parental Investment Among Primates and Other Mammals: A
Critical Evaluation of the Trivers-Willard Hypothesis. In Child Abuse and Neglect: Biosocial
Dimensions (eds Gelles, Richard and Jane B. Lancaster), pp. 97-147. New York, NY: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Jamison, Cheryl Sorenson, Laurel L. Cornell, Paul L. Jamison, and Hideki Nakazato. “Are all
grandmothers equal? A review and a preliminary test of the “grandmother hypothesis” inTokugawa Japan.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 119, no. 1 (2002): 67-76.
Kawaguchi, Hiroshi 2002 “Jyuhasseiki-shoto no Aizu-Minamiyamaokurairi-ryo niokeru Kogaeshi(Infanticide in 18th century Minamiyama-okurairi-ryo, Aizu),” pp.45-71 in Hayami Akira (ed.)
Kindai-ikoki no Jinko to Rekishi (Population and history during the transitional period ofmodernization). Kyoto: Mineruva-shobo.
Kurosu, Satomi 2013 “Adoption and Family Reproduction in Early Modern Japan” The Economic
Review 64(1): 1-12.
Kurosu, Satomi 2011 “Divorce in Early Modern Rural Japan: Household and Individual Life
Course in Northeastern Villages, 1716-1870” Journal of Family History 36: 118-141.

Kurosu, Satomi 2007 “Remarriage in a Stem Family System in Early Modern Japan.” Continuity
and Change 22(3): 429-458.
Kurosu, Satomi, Noriko O. Tsuya and Kiyoshi Hamano 1999. “Regional Differentials in the
Patterns of First Marriage in the Latter Half of Tokugawa Japan.” Keio Economic Studies 36(1): 1338.
Kurosu, Satomi 1996. “Leaving Home in a Stem Family System: Departures of Heirs and NonHeirs.” The History of the Family: An International Quarterly 1(3): 329-352.
Lee, James Z, Feng Wang. 2001 One Quarter of Humanity: Malthusian Mythology and Chinese Realities,
1700-2000. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lee, James, Feng Wang, and Cameron Campbell. 1994. “Infant and Child Mortality Among the
Qing Nobility: Implications for Two Types of Positive Check”. Population Studies 48 (3): 395–411.
Low, Bobbi S. 1990. “Occupational status, landownership, and reproductive behavior in 19thcentury Sweden: Tuna parish.” American Anthropologist. 92, 457-468.
Lynch, Katherine A. 2011. “Why weren't (many) European women ‘missing’?” The History of the
Family 16(3): 250-266.
Maeda, Takashi 1976 Ane-katoku (Eldest daughter succession). Osaka: Kansai University Press.
Maeda, Takashi 1992 Onna ga Ie wo Tsugutoki (when women succeed Ie). Osaka: Kansai University
Press.
Manfredini, Matteo, Marco Breschi, and Alessio Fornasin 2013 “Son preference in asharecropping society: gender composition in a pre-transitional Italian community.” Paper
presented at the Social Science History Association Meeting, Chicago, IL, November 21–24.
Mehrotra, Vikas, Randall Morck, Jungwook Shim, and Yupana Wiwattanakantang 2010
"Adoptive Expectations: Rising Sons in Japanese Family Firms." NBER Working Paper Series
16874, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Mori, Kenji 1999 “Ane-Katoku (Eldest daughter inheritance)” in Fukuda Ajio, et al. (eds.) Nihon
Minzoku Daijiten, Jyo (Dictionary of Japanese Folklore, First volume). Tokyo: Yoshikawakobunkan.

Narimatsu, Saeko. 1985. Kinsei Tohoku Noson no Hitobito: Oshu Asaka-gun Shimomoriya-mura (People
in a northeastern agricultural village in early modern Japan: The village of Shimomoriya, Asaka
County, Ou Region). Kyoto: Mineruva Shobo.
Narimatsu, Saeko. 1992. Edo-jidai no Tohoku Noson: Nihonmatsu-han Niita-mura (Agriculturalvillages in northeastern Tokugawa Japan: The village of Niita in Nihonmatsu Domain). Tokyo:
Dobunkan.
Nihonmatsu-han Shi Kanko-kai (ed.) (1992) Nihonmatsu-han Shi (History of Nihonmatsu
Domain). Reprinted Edition. Kyoto: Rinsen-shoten.
Ota, Motoko 2007 Kodakara to Kogaeshi: Kinseinoson no Kazokuseikatsu to Kosodate (Family and childrearing in early-modern Japan). Tokyo: Fujiwara-shoten.
Ota, Motoko. 1991. "Shoshika to kinsei-shakai no kosodate: Mabiki no shakai-shi (Fertility
decline and childrearing: Social history of infanticide)." In Kazoku no shakai-shi (Social history of
the family), Editorial Committee on the Changing Family (ed.). Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 163179.
Otake Hideo, Wataru Takeda, and Zenkei Hasegawa (eds.) 1998 Yoshi: Giseisareta Oyako(Adoption: Fictional parent-child). Tokyo: Sanseido.
Oto, Osamu 1996 Kinsei-nomin to Ie, Mura, Kokka (Peasants and Ie-village-state in early modernera). Tokyo: Yoshikawa-kobunkan.
Oto, Osamu 2001 Kinsei no mura to seikatsu bunka (Villages and life-culture in early modern
period). Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan.
Park, Chai Bin, and Nam-Hoon Cho. 1995. “Consequences of Son Preference in a Low-fertility
Society: Imbalance of the Sex Ratio at Birth in Korea”. Population and Development Review 21 (1):59–84. doi:10.2307/2137413.
Reher, David Sven. 1998. “Family Ties in Western Europe: Persistent Contrasts”. Population andDevelopment Review 24(2): 203–34. doi:10.2307/2807972.
Reher, D. and Glenn Sandström 2015 “Dimensions of Rational Decision-Making during the
Demographic Transition; Aranjuez (Spain) Revisited.” Historical Life Course Studies 2(2): 20­36.

Reher, David, Glenn Sandström, Alberto Sanz-Gimeno, Frans van Poppel. 2015. “Agency in
Fertility Decisions in Western Europe during the Demographic Transition: The Role ofChildhood Mortality and Sex-Composition.” Population Association of America 2015 Annual
Meeting: Session 150: Sex Preferences and Sex Composition Effects on Fertility Intentions, San
Diego
Saito Osamu 1992 “Infanticide, Fertility and ‘Population Stagnation’: the State of Tokugawa
Historical Demography.” Japan Forum 4(2): 369-382.
Saito Osamu 1998 “Two kinds of stem-family system? Traditional Japan and Europe compared.”Continuity and Change 13(1): 167-186.
Saito Osamu 2000 “Marriage, Family Labour and the Stem Family Household: Traditional Japanin a Comparative Perspective.” Continuity and Change 15 (1):17-45.
Sawayama, Mikako 2005 Sei to Seishoku no Kinsei (Sex and reproduction in early modern period).
Tokyo: Keiso shobo.
Sear, Rebecca, and David Coall. 2011. “How much does family matter? Cooperative breeding
and the demographic transition.” Population and Development Review 37(s1): 81-112.
Sen, Amartya. 1992. “Missing women.” British Medical Journal 304(6827): 587-588.
Skinner, G. William 1993 “Conjugal power in Tokugawa Japanese Families: A matter of life ordeath,” pp. 236-70 in Barbara D. Miller (eds.), Sex and Gender Hierarchies. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Skinner, G. William 1997 “Family systems and demographic process,” pp. 53-95 in Kertzer,
David I. and Tom Fricke (eds.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Skinner, G. William 1988 "Reproductive Strategies, the Domestic Cycle and Fertility among
Japanese Villagers, 1717-1869." Paper presented to the Rockefeller Foundation Workshop on
Women's Status in Relation to Fertility and Mortality, Bellagio, Italy, June 6-10.
Smith, Thomas C. 1977 Nakahara: Family Farming and Population in a Japanese Village, 1717- 1830.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Sandström, G., and Lotta Vikström 2015 “Sex preference for children in German villages during
the fertility transition.” Population Studies 69(1): 57­71.

Tomobe, Ken’ichi 2001 “The Level of Marital Fertility in Tokugawa and Early Meiji Japan,
c.1800-1930s: A Preliminary Analysis of the Hutterite Indices,” pp.138-151 in Liu, T.-J., J. Lee,
D.S. Reher, O. Saito and Wang Feng, (eds.), Asian Population History, Oxford: Oxford.
Tsuya, Noriko O. and Satomi Kurosu 2004 “Mortality and Household in Two Ou Villages,
1716-1870,” pp.253-292 in Bengtsson, Tommy, Cameron Campbell, James Z. Lee, et al. Life
Under Pressure: Mortality and Living Conditions in Europe and Asia, 1700–1900. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Tsuya, Noriko O. and Satomi Kurosu 2010 “Family, Household, and Reproduction in Two
Northeastern Japanese Villages, 1716-1870,” pp.67-95 in Tsuya, Noriko. O., Wang Feng, George
Alter, James Z. Lee, et al. Prudence and Pressure: Reproduction and Human Agency in Europe and Asia,
1700-1900. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Tsuya, Noriko. O., Wang Feng, George Alter, James Z. Lee, et al. 2010. Prudence and Pressure:
Reproduction and Human Agency in Europe and Asia, 1700–1900. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wolf, Arthur P., and Chieh-shan Huang. 1980. Marriage and adoption in China, 1845-1945. Stanford
University Press.
Yamamoto, Jun 2006 “Jinkogakuteki sokumen kara mita Ane-katok: Hitachi-no-kuni Ibaraki-gun
Ariga-mura wo jireitoshite (Ane-katoku viewed from the demographic perspective: a case studyof Ariga village, Ibaraki, Hitachi),” pp.255-282 in Ochiai, Emiko (ed.) Tokugawa-Nihon no Raifu
ko-su: Tokugawa jinkougaku tono taiwa (Life course in Tokugawa Japan: Dialogue with Tokugawa
demography). Kyoto: Mineruva-shobo.

Table 1. Reproductive age patterns and male-to-female sex ratio of recorded births by parity in virilocal and uxorilocal families
Third and later
Wife's age
First birthSecond birth
birthsMarital residenceFirst marriage

First birth

Sex ratioN

Sex ratioN

Sex ratio

N

Virilocal

15.5

19.9

94.0

487

123.3

364

109.0

489

Uxorilocal

13.9

19.1

68.1

190

116.4

132

109.9

170

Table 2. Effects of Marital Residence, Kin Coresidence, Household Landholding and Other Selected Factors on the Probability of Having a
Recorded Male or Female First Birth in the Next Year
(1)

(2)

(3)

Logit model,
clustered SE

Multinomial logit model, clustered SE(ref.: No birth)

Two-level random-intercept
multinomial logit model (ref.: No birth)

Either sex birthMale birth

Female birthMale birth

Female birth

Variableexp(b)p

exp(b)p

exp(b)p

exp(b)p

exp(b)

P

Age

3.436

0.000

3.538

0.000

3.381

0.000

4.429

0.000

4.159

0.000

Age^2

0.972

0.000

0.972

0.000

0.973

0.000

0.969

0.000

0.970

0.000

Age at marriage

1.033

0.075

1.048

0.066

1.018

0.440

0.999

0.984

0.971

0.383

Remarried
0.746
Couple age difference (ref.: Husband 0-5
yrs older)

0.094

0.468

0.004

1.033

0.874

0.510

0.018

1.112

0.646

Wife is older

0.737

0.178

0.843

0.589

0.651

0.158

0.745

0.399

0.605

0.144

Husband 6+ yrs older
Marital Residence (ref.:Virilocal)

1.123

0.274

1.109

0.484

1.132

0.354

1.091

0.597

1.117

0.467

Uxorilocal
Coresidence of parents (ref.
None)

1.470

0.002

1.409

0.039

1.518

0.005

1.600

0.013

1.711

0.002

Only mother (/-in-law)

1.038

0.830

0.956

0.843

1.112

0.654

1.042

0.877

1.194

0.505

Only father (/-in-law)

0.704

0.113

0.497

0.021

0.929

0.789

0.537

0.054

1.017

0.954

Both parents (/-in-law)

0.866

0.354

0.650

0.045

1.108

0.619

0.673

0.109

1.135

0.602

Coresidence of older brother(s)

0.946

0.785

0.840

0.564

1.038

0.885

0.807

0.533

1.010

0.973

Coresidence of older sister(s)Coresidence of younger
brother(s)

0.920

0.686

0.741

0.349

1.074

0.776

0.719

0.353

1.021

0.947

0.863

0.250

0.940

0.725

0.802

0.190

0.902

0.597

0.765

0.149

Coresidence of younger sister(s)Number of kin in thehousehold
Number of non-kin in thehouseholdHousehold landholding (in
koku)

0.719

0.013

0.784

0.188

0.666

0.022

0.716

0.103

0.612

0.011

1.003

0.950

1.029

0.684

0.985

0.818

1.042

0.592

0.997

0.966

0.985

0.630

1.008

0.848

0.958

0.384

1.002

0.971

0.950

0.340

1.010

0.204

1.012

0.267

1.008

0.438

1.012

0.290

1.008

0.498

Logged rice price last year

0.850

0.334

0.709

0.171

0.981

0.929

0.670

0.134

0.933

Village fixed effects

Yes

Period fixed effects
Constant
Level-2 (individual level)
Parameters

Yes

Yes
0.000

Yes

Yes
0.000

0.000

Yes

Yes
0.000

0.000

Yes
0.000

0.000

Yes
0.000

0.000

b

-

-

1 (constrained)

variance (s.e.)--

0.674 (0.350)-1493.876-1879.477-1875.817

978

978

978

Log (pseudo)likelihood
Individuals

0.773
Yes
0.000

Observations
4142
4142
4142
Note: In model 1 and 2, standard errors are adjusted for individual clusters. In model 3, individual observations are the first level and individuals
are the second level.

Table 3. Effects of Marital Residence, Kin Coresidence, Household Landholding and Other Selected Factors on the Probability of Having arecorded male or female Second or later Birth in the Next Year
(1)
(2)
(3)
Two-level random-intercept
Logit model,
Multinomial logit model, clustered SE
multinomial logit model (ref.: No
clustered SE(ref.: No birth)
birth)
Either sex birthMale birth
Female birthMale birth
Female birth
Variableexp(b)p
exp(b)p
exp(b)p
exp(b)p
exp(b)
p
Age
1.100
0.755
1.359
0.319
0.655
0.478
1.440
0.203
0.693
0.637
Age^2
0.990
0.000
0.989
0.000
0.990
0.000
0.988
0.000
0.989
0.000
Age at marriage
1.571
0.130
1.287
0.391
2.645
0.098
1.281
0.359
2.643
0.206
Remarried
0.950
0.658
1.130
0.413
0.779
0.133
1.119
0.533
0.754
0.157
Couple age difference (ref.: Husband 05 yrs older)
Wife is older
1.178
0.312
1.282
0.361
1.088
0.694
1.291
0.337
1.089
0.760
Husband 6+ yrs older
0.845
0.040
0.842
0.109
0.851
0.136
0.819
0.085
0.829
0.118
Years from last birth
1.780
0.055
1.509
0.162
2.893
0.071
1.557
0.104
2.985
0.156
Cumulative number of births
1.180
0.003
1.262
0.001
1.110
0.165
1.178
0.027
1.034
0.644
Sex composition of surviving children (ref.: Males
and females)
No surviving children
7.011
0.000
6.282
0.000
7.843
0.000
8.264
0.000
10.311 0.000
Only males
1.960
0.000
1.790
0.000
2.172
0.000
1.980
0.000
2.380
0.000
Only females
2.163
0.000
2.376
0.000
1.923
0.000
2.694
0.000
2.158
0.000
Marital Residence (ref.:Virilocal)
Uxorilocal
1.062
0.473
0.947
0.648
1.201
0.080
0.941
0.633
1.203
0.154
Co-residence of parents (ref.
None)
Only mother (/-inlaw)
1.482
0.001
1.298
0.074
1.717
0.001
1.342
0.072
1.785
0.000
Only father (/-in-law)
1.224
0.141
1.078
0.703
1.401
0.056
1.045
0.818
1.361
0.110
Both parents (/-inlaw)
1.471
0.001
1.378
0.037
1.592
0.004
1.429
0.031
1.663
0.004
Co-residence of older
brother(s)
1.376
0.033
1.259
0.326
1.519
0.091
1.357
0.243
1.650
0.059
Co-residence of older sister(s)
0.998
0.992
0.990
0.971
1.011
0.972
0.949
0.856
0.981
0.950
Co-residence of younger
brother(s)
1.030
0.770
0.947
0.698
1.122
0.380
0.958
0.781
1.138
0.417
Co-residence of younger
sister(s)
1.413
0.003
1.266
0.119
1.593
0.004
1.275
0.137
1.592
0.005
Number of kin in thehousehold
0.897
0.008
0.924
0.143
0.867
0.005
0.909
0.076
0.850
0.004
Number of non-kin in thehousehold
1.094
0.000
1.100
0.001
1.087
0.003
1.105
0.002
1.092
0.008
Household landholding (in
koku)
0.996
0.496
0.996
0.615
0.996
0.625
0.996
0.604
0.996
0.621
Logged rice price last year
1.100
0.409
1.248
0.139
0.954
0.781
1.252
0.168
0.957
0.804
Village fixed effects
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Period fixed effects
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Constant
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Level-2 (individual level)
Parametersb
1 (constrained)
variance (s.e.)
0.255 (0.089)
Log (pseudo)likelihood-2911.444-3610.232-3603.5606
Individuals
700
700
700
Observations
9746
9746
9746

Appendix table 1. Descriptive statistics of variables
First birthSecond and later births

Variable

Mean

Std. Dev.

Min

Max

Mean

Std. Dev.

Min

Max

Reproduction in next year

0.141

0.348

0

1

0.107

0.308

0

1

No birth

0.859

0.348

0

1

0.893

0.308

0

1

Male birth

0.064

0.245

0

1

0.056

0.230

0

1

Reproduction outcomes in next year

0.077

0.267

0

1

0.050

0.219

0

1

Age

Female birth20.857

8.195

10

49

32.037

8.684

14

49

Age at marriage

15.624

5.358

3

48

26.298

6.533

13

48

Remarried

0.128

0.334

0

1

0.100

0.300

0

1

Husband 0-5 yrs older

0.588

0.492

0

1

0.569

0.495

0

1

Wife is older

0.059

0.236

0

1

0.034

0.181

0

1

Husband 6+ yrs older

Couple age difference

0.353

0.478

0

1

0.397

0.489

0

1

Years from last birth

-

-

-

-

5.651

4.900

1

20

Cumulative number of births

-

-

-

-

2.475

1.331

1

9

Both males and females

-

-

-

-

0.416

0.493

0

1

No surviving children

-

-

-

-

0.029

0.166

0

1

Only boys

-

-

-

-

0.287

0.452

0

1

Only girls

-

-

-

-

0.269

0.444

0

1

Virilocal

0.739

0.439

0

1

0.756

0.430

0

1

Uxorilocal

0.261

0.439

0

1

0.244

0.430

0

1

None

0.156

0.363

0

1

0.384

0.486

0

1

Only mother (/-in-law)

0.127

0.333

0

1

0.163

0.370

0

1

Only father (/-in-law)

0.102

0.303

0

1

0.094

0.292

0

1

Sex composition of surviving children

Marital Residence

Co-residence of parents

Both parents (/-in-law)

0.615

0.487

0

1

0.359

0.480

0

1

Co-residence of older brother(s)

0.137

0.344

0

1

0.045

0.208

0

1

Co-residence of older sister(s)

0.132

0.339

0

1

0.035

0.185

0

1

Co-residence of younger brother(s)

0.272

0.445

0

1

0.132

0.338

0

1

Co-residence of younger sister(s)

0.282

0.450

0

1

0.107

0.309

0

1

Number of kin in the household

4.981

1.838

1

14

5.462

1.688

1

14

Number of non-kin in the household

0.433

1.527

0

25

0.456

1.530

0

25

Household landholding (in koku)

11.8867.416

054.53612.4377.409

053.926

Logged rice price last year

-0.2150.276-0.6730.732-0.2110.277-0.6730.732

Individuals (wives)

978

700

Observations

4142

9746

Note: While not reported in this table, our model estimations also include period and village dummy variables.

Figure 1. Predicted probability of having a recorded birth in the next year

Figure 2. Average marginal effects of uxorilocal (vs. virilocal) marital residence along withhousehold Landholding

Figure 3. Average marginal effects of uxorilocal (vs. virilocal) marital residence by sex
composition of surviving children