Early European population statistics and censuses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early European population statistics and censuses

In the last part of the 20th century, population censuses became a global phenomenon. More than 90% of the present world population is counted. Despite remaining issues of statistical confidentiality, census samples of individuals and households are increasingly used as analytic tools by researchers within historical and present-day demography. Efforts to harmonize census microdata chronologically and spatially are under way.

After lengthy discussions dating back to the 1730s, a royal decree was issued in Sweden in 1748 instituting Tabellverket (collection of statistical tables). The particulars from all 2500 parishes in the country included since 1749 both census-type data, that is, statistics on the size and structure of the population (population tables) and vital data on births and deaths (mortality tables). The former was produced every year in the period of 1749–1752, then every third year, and from 1775—every fifth year. The latter was produced every year between 1749 and 1830, also containing information about the causes of death. To avoid any misunderstanding, it must be added that the first census of the world was numeric, not nominal. Sweden got its first nominal census in 1860 in connection with a new reporting system and the establishment of the Central Bureau of Statistics in Stockholm.

The Church and the State in Sweden had an old common interest in keeping track of the population. The Church was interested in ensuring that the Lutheran religion was observed by the population. The military state during Sweden’s ‘‘age of greatness’’ was interested in knowing how many young men could be enlisted. The initiative in 1748 occurred in a favourable political climate when the Church and the State still cooperated. The mercantilistic economic policy of the period, combined with the explosive development within the sciences in the middle of the 17th century, was personified by Pehr Wargentin (1717–1783), the architect behind the Swedish population statistics, who also played a decisive role in the establishment of a national census and population statistics. Census taking in its modern form started in Denmark 20 years later than in Sweden.Hans Christian Johansen discusses the trial-and-error process in carrying out and tabulating the three first censuses in the country (1769, 1787, and 1801) and in reaching a form which, with only minor changes, was used up to 1890. In contrast to the Swedish censuses, the second Danish census in 1787 was already nominal, including each person’s full name. The 1801 census, especially, was improved as far as the relation of relatives to the head of the household was concerned. Families within the same household were now also separated in the lists by appropriate markers.

The early Danish censuses were also taken in Norway, the Faroe Islands, and Iceland, which at that time belonged to the Danish Kingdom. Gunnar Thorvaldsen gives an overview of the more-than-300- year-long history of the Norwegian censuses. Norway reverted for financial reasons to the numeric census from 1815 to 1855; however, from the 1865 decadal period, nominative censuses have been taken. As Thorvaldsen points out, the emerging welfare state demanded new and more detailed information in the censuses during the 20th century. As in many other countries, the censuses in Norway are machine-readable since the 1960s. With himself being a participant in the international cooperation on computerizing census data, Thorvaldsen also discusses the many national and international projects which have been set up to digitize and standardize census material for demographic, historical, social scientific, and economic research. Thorvaldsen finally mentions the promising efforts to make the 19th-century Norwegian census material compatible with anonymous samples from modern censuses.

Andrejs Plakans and Charles Wetherell make an inventory and assessment of the 1881 census in the Russian Baltic provinces, which was neglected by population historians and preceded the Russian Imperial Census of 1897. The census offers information about the provinces of Estland, Livland, and Kurland, and the city of Riga. Three kinds of forms were to be filled out in the census lists: one for each individual, one for the household unit, and one for the place of residence. The large number of enumerators questioned individuals, household heads, and local officials before filling out the forms.

Cultural identity variables like ‘‘nationality’’ could have proven to be problematic in urban areas, where assimilation processes were more successful than in the countryside. Two specific features are reflected in the census: the identification of people with physical and mental disabilities and the preoccupation with the physical dwellings of the Baltic population. However, according to the authors, the enumerators seem to have overlooked or disguised the socio-familial categories of the Latvian- and Estonian-speaking peasantry. Familial networks remained in the shadows. Surprisingly enough, the 1881 Baltic census also gives little information about the ongoing strong rural-to-urban migration in the region.

As Jürgen Wilcke discusses in his article on the Prussian population statistics, printed registers of the population movements in Brandenburg–Prussia date back to the late 17th century. Historical tables of persons born, married, and deceased, and also to some extent of migrants, were developed even before the foundation of the Prussian Office of Statistics in 1805. More modern census-type registrations including families and households were introduced but at a later date. The first national census of the British population was organized in 1801. Richard Wall’s article focuses on the reliability of the parochial registration system established by Thomas Cromwell and including information on baptisms, marriages, and burials prior to 1801. The rates of omission in the registers were high and rising over time, especially as far as baptisms and burials were concerned. The various suggestions for improving the quality of the registers are discussed in the article. Most of these failed because the quality of the registration system was not perceived as a major issue for the state. Certain clerics also derived a considerable income from the unreformed system. Patrice Bourdelais scrutinizes the purpose and arrangement of the French censuses during the period of 1650–1900, with special emphasis on the ‘‘ideology’’ behind the choice of categories and variables. The debate on the standardization of the age structure of the population in the censuses is treated, as well as the interrelation between the early fertility transition in France and the need of more sophisticated census data.